Sitting of 9 February 2004

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

    Pensioners
    Sir Teddy Taylor: What estimate he has made of the number of retirement pensioners in the forthcoming year; and how many there were five years ago. [153170]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith): It is fitting that the hon. Gentleman is No. 1 in questions today, as I understand that last week he announced his prospective retirement from the House. I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole House in paying tribute to his years of distinguished service and in wishing him all the very best for the future.
    The number of people over state pension age in Great Britain is estimated to be 10.85 million, compared with 10.47 million five years ago. In the course of this year we expect 113,500 additional people to be above state pension age. Since we took office the number of pensioners has gone up by 4 per cent. The real value of spending on pensions and benefits for people over 60 has gone up by 24 per cent.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: I thank the Secretary of State for his kind words, which I genuinely very much appreciate, but is he aware of the concern and alarm among 10 million pensioners about the pressure being put on them to give up their pension book and to use bank accounts instead, in anticipation of the abolition of pension books in 2005? Would he be willing to discuss with his Cabinet colleagues the fact that many pensioners enjoy having a pension book and are concerned about the linked effect, which will result in the closure of a huge number of post offices on which pensioners depend greatly for many services? I thank the Secretary of State for all that he has done, but will he discuss the issue with colleagues as it is genuinely serious and will affect a lot of elderly people—like me?
    Mr. Smith: I certainly recognise the concerns of the hon. Gentleman and of those who have raised the matter with him. We should remember that the majority of pensioners choose to have their payments made
    1100
    directly. Moreover, the order book is vulnerable to fraud and theft; many pensioners are attacked and their order book stolen from them. We are honouring our pledge that pensioners will be able to continue to receive their pension in cash at the post office. An exceptions service will be in place for those for whom the Post Office card account is not suitable, to ensure that their needs are met.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growth in the number not only of pensioners but also of people who are penalised by the transport lottery—the postcode lottery whereby some pensioners have free off-peak travel while others do not? What can be done to ensure that all pensioners are treated the same? Can they have better help through the pension system?
    Mr. Smith: To the best of my knowledge, there is a national commitment to a concessionary scheme. I admit that that will mean that some local authorities will provide help over and above the national minimum, but there is always tension between the responsiveness and democratic accountability that we want in localities and the avoidance of a postcode lottery. However, the enormous investment that we are making in our public transport system is a certain factor in ensuring that transport is available in rural as well as in urban areas to meet the needs of pensioners as well as others.
    Andrew Selous: May I press the Secretary of State further on the question about pension books asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor)? Will the right hon. Gentleman say a little more about the concerns of pensioners who have several carers? When their pension books go, there may be problems with the PINs if several carers are involved.
    Mr. Smith: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we have ensured that pensioners can nominate somebody to use a card on their behalf to collect their pension. Where they need to make arrangements involving a number of people, they can do so at present through the order book, but we shall have to ensure that the exceptions service also enables them to meet that need.
    Mr. Brian Jenkins: My right hon. Friend is perfectly aware of the fact that to use a book in a post office requires a post office, and that plans for the urban reconstruction—or destruction—of post offices in my part of the world mean that no post offices or cash outlets will be available. Pensioners could use a free bus pass if the proposed buses were actually on a bus route, but they are not even on a bus route. How will he get the money to those people?
    Mr. Smith: As I am sure my hon. Friend will recognise, we have put £2 billion into supporting the post office network, including more than £400 million in rural areas. It makes sense to plan locally to ensure better co-ordination between accessibility, which includes his point about public transport routes, and the availability of points where pensioners can collect their cash, whether at the post office or through alternative facilities.

    Defined Benefit Pension Schemes
    Dr. Vincent Cable: What estimate he has made of the number of wind-ups of defined benefit pension schemes in solvent companies in 2003. [153171]
    The Minister for Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): The pension schemes registry holds information on the number of final salary schemes that are currently winding up, or which have entered into and completed the winding-up process. It is not, however, designed or intended to provide a comprehensive or continuous statistical record of the status of schemes, and it does not provide information on the solvency position of companies whose schemes are winding up.
    According to the registry, in the first half of 2003 approximately 100 of a total of some 15,000 defined benefit pension schemes had started the winding-up process, and approximately 260 such schemes had finished winding up. Owing to schemes having a 12-month notification period, these figures may be subject to change.
    Dr. Cable: I thank the Minister for that informative reply. Is he aware of the recent warning from the Office of the Pensions Advisory Service that a massive loophole is opening up in the Government's pension protection plans, inasmuch as solvent companies with large deficits in their pension schemes on a minimum funding requirement basis can capitalise on those deficits, and then renege on their debts at the expense of their pensioners? Does he recognise OPAS's warning that there could be what it calls
    "a flood of solvent wind-ups before April 2005 at members' expense",
    and how would he plug that loophole?
    Malcolm Wicks: All our endeavours—including the pensions Bill, which will be published soon—are intended to get security back into social security in old age. We will listen very carefully to any concerns about loopholes, including those expressed by OPAS, in order to ensure that there are not ways in which people can avoid their responsibilities
    Mr. Frank Field: In the past four months, when asked when the House will see the pensions Bill, the Minister for Pensions has said—as he said this afternoon—that it will appear "soon". How soon is "soon", and when "soon" arrives will the Bill contain a clause that puts a levy on unclaimed assets, so that people who have already lost most of, if not all, their pension will be compensated at least to some extent?
    Malcolm Wicks: I like to be consistent, but may I now revise "soon" to "very soon"? My right hon. Friend, who is occasionally a patient man, will not have to wait very much longer. The pensions Bill will be concerned with establishing a new pension protection fund and a new regulator with real teeth, to ensure that when pension promises are made, they are kept.
    Mr. Michael Weir: Is the Minister aware of the research of Dr. Ros Altmann, who
    1102
    calculates that some 40,000 members of pension schemes are affected by these wind-ups, and that some £93 million will be needed to compensate them over many years? If he is not, will he look at that research and think again about compensation for those who have already lost out, because as I understand it the forthcoming Bill will not deal with retrospective claims?
    Malcolm Wicks: Various matters are on the agenda. We are concerned that solvent companies that seek to wind up their schemes must now guarantee the full buyout of pension rights for members. Secondly, the "pensions (very soon) Bill" will legislate for a pension protection fund to bring future security. Meanwhile, we are looking at the very serious circumstances that existing pensioners and members face in respect of schemes that have gone bankrupt, but it is important to repeat that we cannot provide any false hope in what is a very complex situation.
    Mr. John McFall: The Minister will know that some companies are using the flight from such schemes to reduce their contributions to employees, and that there is a long-term saving problem in this country. What are the Government doing to ensure that these employers face up to their responsibilities to employees in future?
    Malcolm Wicks: It is very important that employers are able to offer proper company pension schemes. We have created an employers taskforce to look at this issue. and its purpose is to establish good practice. We are very conscious of the need for many people to save more than they are saving at the moment. Our recent strategy paper on informed choice is designed to introduce measures that will enable people to make better choices. In other ways, too, we are concerned to enable people to save more and to have decent pension schemes.
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: Has the Minister seen last week's calculation by Mercer that the total deficit in UK occupational pensions is now £330 billion? Does he agree that EU rules requiring companies to make up that deficit may render irrelevant much of the pensions Bill, even before it is published?
    Malcolm Wicks: I certainly do not recognise the hon. Gentleman's last point. We have consulted on the EU directive, which is very much in line with our own ideas. The pensions Bill will promote the concept of scheme-specific funding, which the industry has widely welcomed. Estimates of pension liabilities vary a great deal. Other estimates suggest that recent increases in world share prices have made the deficit less than it was, but none of us is complacent about the issue.

    New Deal
    Claire Ward: If he will make a statement on the impact of the new deal for lone parents. [153172]
    The Minister for Work (Mr. Desmond Browne): The new deal for lone parents is just one of a raft of measures that we have introduced to help lone parents gain independence through work. Other measures include

    1103
    our national child care strategy; the lone parent's benefit run-on; and the working tax credit, including the child tax credit. By the end of September 2003, more than 430,000 lone parents had participated in the new deal for lone parents and more than 220,000 had been helped into work. There is still more to do, but we have made major progress towards meeting our target of getting 70 per cent. of lone parents into work.
    Claire Ward: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply and for the impact that the new deal has made on lone parents. Has he seen recent research showing that the costs of child care are rising rapidly in the private sector and making it increasingly difficult for lone parents as well as two-parent families to secure work or be able to return to work and pay for child care provision? What discussions has my hon. Friend had with colleagues in other Departments about making child care affordable for lone parents as well as for two-parent families?
    Mr. Browne: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the role of good-quality, affordable child care in helping to secure a route out of poverty for families. Constant discussion takes place between officials and Ministers in my Department and those in the Department for Education and Skills and the Treasury. My hon. Friend will be aware of the announcements in the pre-Budget statement on making child care affordable, and she should be reassured that the Government are on track to meet their target on the roll-out of the national child care strategy. Indeed, there are currently more than 800,000 new child care places in the UK, from which 1.4 million children benefit.
    Mr. George Osborne: Will the Minister confirm whether, when a lone parent leaves—or is sacked from—a job after 14 weeks, the Government chalk it up as a success for the new deal in getting people into sustained employment?
    Mr. Browne: The measures in place for measuring whether jobs are retained are fully in the public domain. The hon. Gentleman gleans his information in that way, but I have to say that it would be a sad day when the Government took advice from a party that, when in government, as the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) admitted, waged war on lone parents. We will take no advice from such a party on how we should conduct our policy on lone parents. The fact remains that, although the measurement is in the public domain, there is clear evidence to suggest that significant numbers of people who benefit from the new deal or the new deal for lone parents move on later into long-term and sustained work. That is why we can now celebrate the fact that about 500,000 children have been taken out of poverty in the UK.
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: What improvements does my hon. Friend intend to make to the new deal for lone parents, and what assessment has he made of the impact of abandoning the programme?
    Mr. Browne: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that not all parties in the House support the measures in place in labour market programmes, which
    1104
    have resulted in 1.7 million more people across the board in work today than in 1997, and 500,000 fewer people on unemployment benefit. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my other ministerial colleagues and I are hell-bent on improving the labour market programmes and building further on them. My hon. Friend will be aware of the roll-out of work-focused interviews for lone parents, which provides them with an opportunity to find out what employment can do for them and their families to lift their children out of poverty. We move forward with that programme.

    Occupational Pensions
    Kevin Brennan: What plans he has to permit employers to compel employees to join final salary occupational pension schemes. [153173]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith): The Government have no such plans. The independent Pensions Commission is examining whether greater compulsion is advisable. As we set out last week, we are looking at whether it makes sense to promote more general use of schemes that automatically enrol employees unless they chose to opt out and at how we can best ensure that an individual's decision to join or not to join an occupational pension is based on good information.
    Kevin Brennan: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. When my father joined the steel industry, he was compelled to join a final salary occupational scheme and, fortunately, that has seen him well in retirement. The Allied Steel and Wire workers were similarly compelled to join an occupational pension scheme. When people ask me, "Would you let what has happened to the ASW workers happen to your own father?" my answer is an unequivocal no. What would the Secretary of State's answer be to the same question?
    Mr. Smith: I would share my hon. Friend's concern for the plight of those affected, as the Minister for Pensions, other ministerial colleagues and I have made clear on many occasions. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's energy and commitment in campaigning on behalf of those who have lost out because of company insolvency. As he knows, we have been examining whether anything might be done, without wanting to raise false hope, and as soon as I am able to report further to the House I will do so.
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: As the Secretary of State knows, I am interested in ASW—ASW Sheerness is in my constituency—along with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who asked a question that was similar to questions that we have been asking in the House for the past couple of months: how do we get to the bottom of how many people's pension schemes are in deficit? If my right hon. Friend introduces a retrospective measure—we hope that he will—how will he know that it will cover everyone if there are differences of opinion between the Treasury, the Office of the Pensions Advisory Service and other groups?
    Mr. Smith: As my hon. Friend suggests, identifying precisely who has lost out in that way is one of the many

    1105
    dimensions of difficulty to this very challenging issue. As I said when he last raised this, other issues include how to differentiate between some who have lost out and others who have lost out in respect of eligibility; whether it is right to use taxpayers' money—let us remember that half of taxpayers are not members of occupational pensions schemes—to give extra help to that group; the risk of raising expectations that taxpayers stand behind private savings and pensions as a whole; and, not least, the risk of prejudicing the legal action that has been taken already. I mention hose matters to show that we are carefully looking at the issue—including, as my hon. Friend points out, at the numbers affected—but I am not able today to say what the conclusion of that examination is.

    Antisocial Behaviour
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: What his policy is on the use of access to means-tested benefits as a deterrent to antisocial behaviour. [153174]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond): As a matter of principle, we do not believe that the community has an unconditional responsibility to support those who do not fulfil their responsibilities to the community. We have introduced a range of tough penalties to deal with antisocial behaviour, which blights people's daily lives, including measures in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, which came into force that month. Following consultation, I recently announced that we will not go ahead with a housing benefit sanction at this stage, but we do not rule out introducing further measures when we have seen how effective the range of measures already in place has been.
    Mr. Swayne: That was most disappointing. The painfully slow pace at which the Government have been tiptoeing in the right direct ion has been frustrating. The Prime Minister pledged himself to that policy on 1 May last year, and the Government are now backing off. May we have an explanation?
    Mr. Pond: We will take every practical measure necessary to deal with antisocial behaviour. [Interruption]. I wish that we could count on the support of the Opposition in that determination to deal with antisocial and loutish behaviour. I have reminded the House that in recent weeks we have introduced a number of new measures that are intended to deal with antisocial behaviour. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are extending the pilot schemes to sanction offenders who breach their community sentences. We will watch closely to see what effect those measures have, but if they do not have the effect of dealing significantly with antisocial behaviour we will not hesitate to look again at sanctions on housing benefit.
    Vera Baird: The problem with benefit sanctions is that they can punish entire families when only one member may not be acting responsibly. Antisocial behaviour is a dreadful problem, not least in Redcar where almost every surgery I hold brings a new complaint. Will the Minister look with great care at schemes run and supported by organisations such as
    1106
    Shelter in Rochdale and Bolton, among other places, that aim to change the behaviour of problem members of families? They are not at all softie stuff, so will he examine those schemes with care before he looks again at benefit sanctions?
    Mr. Pond: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for those comments. We must, of course, use the full range of measures. Some of them will be positive; some of them will be negative such as sanctions. For example, in community sentences, we are balancing both the piloting of the sanctions with incentives for those who do not breach their community service orders. However, we must be aware that the community and all our constituents want to see us acting decisively using every practical measure that is available. Sanctions have been built into the social security system since 1911, when unemployment benefit was first introduced, for reasons that are still relevant today.
    Mr. David Willetts: Will the Minister confirm whether the Prime Minister was informed and consulted before last week's announcement to abandon housing benefit sanctions?
    Mr. Pond: I think that you, Mr. Speaker, can be sure that the Prime Minister was fully aware of the decision. From the answer that he gave at Prime Minister's Question Time, it was very clear that he was aware of the decision.
    Mr. Willetts: I am pleased to hear that the Prime Minister was consulted, but when my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked him about the subject last Wednesday I did not gain the impression that the Prime Minister was fully aware of it. Therefore, I am very pleased to hear that he was consulted. It was put to him that he had specifically made a pledge in his 2002 conference speech that he would implement the measure, so what was his reaction when the Minister told him that he was abandoning the idea?
    Mr. Pond: If I remember rightly, the Prime Minister was very grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for reminding him of his conference speeches. The Prime Minister also reminded the Leader of the Opposition, who had forgotten within a matter of days, that only very recently we introduced a full range of measures and brought them into force to deal with antisocial behaviour. We have made it absolutely clear that we will see how effective those measures are. If we need to use other measures, we will not hesitate to do so.

    Pensioner Incomes
    Mr. John MacDougall: What assessment he has made of the effect of Government policy on the incomes of (a) the poorest pensioners and (b) all pensioners. [153175]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith): As a result of Government measures since 1997, including the introduction of pension credit, pensioner households are now, on average, £24 a week better off in real terms. The poorest third of pensioner

    1107
    households are —30 a week better off. I have today placed in the Library the latest figures for take-up of pension credit at a national and constituency level. They show that 2.18 million households, and 2.62 million individuals, are now in receipt of pension credit.
    Mr. MacDougall: I thank the Secretary of State for that response. Does he agree that, after many years of missed opportunities to redress the imbalance in terms of pensioners and their requirements, the introduction of the pension credit scheme is very welcome? For example, in my constituency of Central Fife, 3,091 pensioner households benefit on average by £39.36 a week, and I am sure that they appreciate that. The policy must be very welcome.
    Mr. Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome for the progress that we are making on pension credit in his constituency and throughout the country. Much hard work is going in not only on the telephone lines, but on the 302,000 home visits that the Pension Service has made across the country. That reflects great credit on all the staff who are working to make a success of this important policy of countering pensioner poverty and rewarding pensioners with modest savings.
    Mr. Steve Webb: The Secretary of State knows that on average the oldest pensioners tend to be the poorest pensioners. He also knows that his Department's statistics show that older pensioners are the least likely to claim his pension credit. The Government are right to target the winter fuel payment by giving extra money to older pensioners, and they are right to target free TV licences by giving them only to older pensioners. Why will he not be right again by targeting the basic state pension in the same way?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman acknowledges that a lot more is right with our policies than is wrong. I remember his conceding in a previous exchange that if we were to follow his advice it would mean giving less to poorer, younger pensioners in order to give more to better-off, older pensioners. It makes sense to combine universal entitlements with help especially targeted at the poorest in the pensions system. Thanks to those policies, we have helped 1.6 million pensioners out of absolute poverty and 400,000 pensioners out of relative poverty. We shall keep driving those policies forward to make a success of the war against poverty.
    Mr. Stephen Hepburn: Can the Secretary of State explain why only half of the 5 million pensioners who are eligible for pension credit claim it? What is he going to do about that?
    Mr. Smith: We are, of course, only part of the way through the campaign period to ensure maximum take-up of pension credit. We said that we would write to every pensioner household in the country by June. I am confident that we will achieve that target, and I hope that we will write to every pensioner household before then. I have already referred to the extensive outreach work, which includes more than 300,000 home visits, and there is also TV advertising, press advertising and word of mouth among pensioners, which is increasingly
    1108
    important. Pensioners commend the friendliness and responsiveness of the service, which is a point borne out by independent research.
    Returning to older pensioners, as we try—as we must—to drive take-up higher, it is all the more important to work intensively in collaboration with social services and others to identify those older and frail pensioners who are least likely to claim and ensure that they do so.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Since 1997, has the number of pensioners on means-tested benefits gone up or down?
    Mr. Smith: Conservative Members keep dragging out the question of means-tested benefits. I am proud that so many more pensioners benefit from the pension credit than gained from the minimum income arrangements under the previous Government. Let us remember that poorer pensioners are getting substantially more than they were in 1997. The —30 more a week enables this Government to make progress in combating pensioner poverty that could only have been dreamt about when the Conservative party froze the real value of the pension year in, year out. The Conservative Government increased it only when they introduced VAT on fuel, which placed so many pensioners in poverty.
    Richard Burden: May I add my welcome for the pension credit's impact on both poorer pensioners and those with small occupational pensions? Does the Secretary of State agree that pensions policies must mesh with our policies on occupational pensions if we are to get them right? Although the pensions Bill will certainly help, may I again draw his attention to the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) about the need to tackle those pensioners who have lost through the failure of occupational pensions, which include not only ASW but firms such as Kalamazoo in my constituency?
    Mr. Smith: I acknowledge my hon. Friend's important points about his constituents at Kalamazoo and the success of pension credit. The imminent pensions Bill—we are that much closer to it now my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has spoken—will set up a pension protection fund, which will ensure that in future a pensions promise made will be a pensions promise honoured.

    Pension Credit
    John Barrett: How many pensioner households in Scotland are in receipt of pension credit. [153176]
    The Minister for Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): I am pleased to report that so far, as at 31 January, there were 229,000 households in Scotland, comprising approximately 271,000 individuals, receiving pension credit. We have today published the latest monthly pension credit progress report, including numbers of recipient households in each parliamentary constituency in Great Britain. The hon. Gentleman will

    1109
    be interested to learn that more than 2,000 households now receive pension credit in his constituency, 73 per cent. of which are financial gainers as a result.
    John Barrett: Still only some 50 per cent. of those who are entitled to pension credit have taken it up. What consideration has been given to whether the application process puts people off applying for the pension credit? One constituent wrote to me saying that after answering the questions on the form they felt stripped of all dignity and decided not to bother in the end. What can be done to ensure that those who need and deserve the credit can get through the application system?
    Malcolm Wicks: I am sorry about the tone that the hon. Gentleman has adopted. It would have been foolish to try to write to 7 million or more pensioner households across Britain in one week or one month. That is why we have a phased take-up programme. In that way, we can answer the phone calls—we answer 96 per cent. within 30 seconds—and anyone who applies up to October this year will have any credit entitlement backdated to October last year. I am pleased to note that one of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues, the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), said:
    "I am delighted to see Aberdeenshire pensioners gaining significantly by the introduction of the new Pension Credit."
    It is good to see that not all Liberal Democrats are trying to put elderly people off the pension credit.
    Mr. Bill Tynan: The 3,000-plus pensioner households in Hamilton, South are obviously delighted with the average payment of £45 that they are getting through pension credit. Phasing in was vital, and should continue, but does my hon. Friend accept that overpayment because of miscalculation could be a problem in some instances? Will he consider such problems sympathetically, if they occur?
    Malcolm Wicks: I am happy to talk to my hon. Friend about any particular problems in his constituency. I doubt that overpayment would occur in many circumstances. While some people bandy around the words "means test", let us remember that under the previous Government there was a weekly means test. Pension credit is a million miles away from that, because we do not seek information about people's finances once a credit has been made.
    Mr. Alistair Carmichael: What steps he is taking to encourage pension credit take-up. [153177]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): We are currently in the main phase of our marketing campaign for pension credit and have carried out TV and press advertising as well as writing directly to pensioner households. We are working in partnership with organisations such as Help the Aged, Age Concern and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux at a national and local level to ensure that as many pensioners as possible take up their entitlement.
    Mr. Carmichael: I thank the Minister for that answer. However, in my constituency, fewer people receive
    1110
    money through the pension credit than under the minimum income guarantee. As for the letter-writing campaign, is the Minister aware that some 72,000 pensioners entitled to pension credit will die before the Government get round to telling them about it? Those figures are from the Library. How bad do things have to be before the Government admit that their scheme is failing?
    Maria Eagle: I am surprised to hear the tone of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, given that he has assisted us greatly in his constituency with enabling his constituents to claim. I take issue with his first point: my figures indicate that the number of people claiming pension credit in his constituency has increased by 25 per cent. over the number claiming the minimum income guarantee. Perhaps I could sit down with the hon. Gentleman outside the Chamber to try to work out how he has received that impression. I do not think that what he said is correct. He has a large rural constituency and that poses particular problems in ensuring that everybody gets their entitlements. However, he and others have helped us to increase the number of people claiming. For example, the Women's Royal Voluntary Service in Shetland contacted us about one lady. As a result of a home visit, she ended up with an extra £124 a week, in attendance allowance and pension credit. That has got to be worth the effort that he and our local staff are putting in.
    Helen Jackson: Has my hon. Friend had time to look at the research produced by the Fawcett Society last week, which shows that one in four single women pensioners are still living in poverty? What steps will she take to use the pension credit system to address that problem? It stems partly from the broken working periods that make up most women's working lives, meaning that they enter the pensioner stage at a huge disadvantage to men.
    Maria Eagle: I acknowledge that issue, but I can tell my hon. Friend that pension credit is a way of targeting money at those at the poorest end. Almost 60 per cent. of the extra £2 billion spend on pension credit each year goes to the poorest third of pensioners, most of whom are women. She should do what I am urging others to do: get pensioners to claim. I know that there are 4,310 households in her constituency now claiming pension credit, with an average weekly award of £37.68, which is well worth it for those individuals.
    Mr. Paul Goodman: The Government want at least 3 million pensioner households to take up pension credit by 2006, but on the Government's figures, even if that target is reached, 1.4 million of the poorest pensioners will not be taking up the pension credit. Is it not therefore evident that the Government's obsession with means-testing will leave almost 1.5 million of our most vulnerable pensioners with nothing at all from the pension credit?
    Maria Eagle: I do not accept that. The hon. Gentleman mistakes a target for a ceiling. We want everyone who is entitled to pension credit to take up their entitlement, and in constituencies where there is a proactive approach from local agencies in connection

    1111
    with local services, we can make a big difference. There is no reason why that target should be the end of take-up, and we want everyone to take up their entitlement. However, the Conservative party's pension plans would pay three fifths of their proposed spend to the richest pensioners and only one fifth to the poorest. That is a typical Tory policy.
    Mr. Colin Challen: What has been the take-up of pension credit in Morley and Rothwell. [153178]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): As at 31 January, 3,609 pensioner households in Morley and Rothwell, comprising 4,343 individuals, were in receipt of pension credit. That is a 24 per cent. increase on take-up of the minimum income guarantee.
    Mr. Challen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer, which shows that nearly 1,200 pensioner households are now receiving extra money from the Government and are therefore better off than they were four or five months ago. I should like to take the opportunity to thank the Pension Service and its staff in Leeds for helping me to run several pensioner advice sessions last year to try to help pensioners to claim their due. I am slightly concerned, however, that the level of award in my constituency is 14 per cent. lower than the national average. I do not believe, at first sight, that the demographic make-up of my constituency merits that lower award. Will my hon. Friend meet me to study an intensive analysis of why that is the case and to consider ways of improving take-up?
    Maria Eagle: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his efforts to improve take-up in his constituency. He has not only helped the local Pension Service to hold surgeries, but been active in other ways to try to increase the level of take-up. My hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions would be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen) to discuss the points that he has raised. However, the average award made to his constituents who were claiming the minimum income guarantee and are now claiming pension credit is £37.62 a week. Although that is slightly below the Great Britain average, that money will none the less be very welcome to those pensioners, and I am sure that they are very pleased to receive it.
    Simon Hughes: What the take-up of pension credit in London has been since its introduction; and if he will make a statement. [153179]
    The Minister for Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): I am pleased to report that as at 31 January, there were 239,000 pensioner households in London, comprising approximately 284,000 Londoners, receiving pension credit.
    Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. I tie it in with an answer that he gave me in writing last week, which showed that about 220,000 people across Greater London are as yet not claiming
    1112
    pension credit. Whatever our difference of view on the issue, will he accept that if so many people in need of that money are still not claiming it, one way of immediately giving them the necessary information would be to send out with their council tax bills—which they do not like—some information that might help them to pay those bills? That information could be sent to all the households in Greater London if the Minister's Department could get it organised in the next few weeks.
    Malcolm Wicks: As I explained earlier in the Scottish context, it is sensible for us to have a planned and phased take-on. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would be the first to complain—they are often the first to complain anyway—if we had written to everyone so quickly that we could not answer the phones or deal with the resulting applications. We are doing this in the proper way, which makes sense for Londoners and others. Although there has already been great progress—involving more than 4,000 households in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, for example—we are continuing to write to Londoners, and we are determined to increase take-up through different methods, including home visits, which are proving very successful.
    John Cryer: I accept what my hon. Friend says, but does he recognise that in some constituencies there are many pensioners who do not have a great deal of money coming in on a weekly or monthly basis, but who have savings that they have built up over the years? The savings threshold means that those people are excluded from the pension credit. Is there any possibility of raising that threshold, so that pensioners such as those who recently came to my advice surgery to tell me that they were not entitled to pension credit could be allowed into the system?
    Malcolm Wicks: I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that more than 2,000 people in his constituency are benefiting from pension credit so far. Under the old system of income support or the minimum income guarantee, any pound of extra savings from a work pension or money in the Post Office was knocked off pound for pound. One of the key factors about the pension credit is that, for the first time, we are rewarding those who have done the right thing, as it were, by saving.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Has it worked?
    Malcolm Wicks: Yes, it has worked. The savings credit is rewarding people, which is why we now have so many gainers from pension credit. There will always be a cut-off point, and there will always be some who apply and who are disappointed, but that is the logic of a scheme that seeks to target the poorest and most hard-pressed pensioners, including many of the very elderly and the roughly two thirds of recipients who are women and who are now gaining from pension credit.

    Pension Protection Fund
    Gregory Barker: If he will make a statement on his proposed pension protection fund. [153180]
    The Minister for Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): The pension protection fund will play a key role in the Government's plan of action significantly to improve protection for pension scheme members and to create greater confidence in pensions in general. For the first time ever, members of defined-benefit pension schemes based in the UK can rest assured that they will always receive a pension, even if their company goes bankrupt leaving the pension scheme underfunded.
    Gregory Barker: I thank the Minister for that answer, but will he tell the House how many people have had their pension affected by company insolvency since 1997, and when these plans are actually going to be put in place? Will he also undertake to look into the case of Ballast Wiltshier—a company owned by the Dutch company Ballast Nedem—which was acquired and subsequently liquidated? As a result, a constituent of mine can now expect only a fraction of the pension that he was formerly entitled to, although the parent company is still operating profitably in the Netherlands.
    Malcolm Wicks: I shall be happy to consider the details of that case and to discuss it with the hon. Gentleman. I am grateful to him for raising that important matter. The Bill will be published, as we know—[HON. MEMBERS: "Soon?"] Very soon. Depending on the will of Parliament, we are working towards implementation of the fund and other key aspects of the provisions in the spring of next year.
    Miss Anne Begg: The new pension protection fund proposed in the "soon to come along very imminently" Bill will obviously not be retrospective. May I add my voice to those who have already asked the Government seriously to consider giving some kind of compensation to pensioners who have lost their pension entitlement as a result of the collapse of their occupational pension scheme? I have a number of such constituents who were involved in the Richards scheme, which is one of the schemes having difficulties at the moment.
    Malcolm Wicks: I hear my hon. Friend's statement, but cannot add anything to what the Secretary of State and I have said. However, the Secretary of State, other colleagues and I have met some of the workers who are affected, and we have a clear understanding of the reality facing them.
    Paul Holmes: When the pension protection fund is introduced, hopefully in 2005, it will be welcome, but it would have been more welcome if it had been introduced as long ago as 2000, when Ros Altmann, a former Government adviser, warned of the coming crisis and urged the adoption of such a scheme. However, as we have heard, the fund offers nothing to people who lost their pension between 1997 and 2000, such as constituents of mine who worked for Chesterfield Cylinders, Dema Glass and Coalite
    1114
    Products Ltd. Can the Minister not offer any hope of compensation to such people, especially those who worked in the steel industry and were compelled by the Government to make payments into their pension?
    Malcolm Wicks: The Secretary of State and I have already answered those questions, and I did so again just now. We are listening to sensible suggestions, and have met concerned MPs, their constituents and affected workers. We cannot say anything at this stage because we do not want to offer false hope, but we are listening very carefully.

    Return to Work
    Ms Sally Keeble: What measures through the social security system are being taken to help mothers who want to return to work. [153181]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond): We want to give parents real choices about whether to work, and we will continue to take measures to support mothers who want to return to work. Our new deal for lone parents has already helped more than 200,000 mothers into work. We are making child care affordable and accessible through the child care component of the new tax credits and the extra places created through our national child care strategy, including Sure Start and a network of children's centres, including one in my hon. Friend's constituency, offering early learning alongside child care.
    Ms Keeble: I certainly welcome the measures set out by my hon. Friend, but does he accept that many single mothers with young children want to be able to get back to nursing and teaching? University College Northampton, which is in my patch, provides extremely good courses, but I receive quite a lot of complaints, because single parents cannot make the benefits from the social security and child care systems work with the student finance system. Would my hon. Friend look into that with colleagues from other Departments, to make it possible for lone parents with children to get training, particularly in nursing and teaching, so that they can get those valuable jobs?
    Mr. Pond: My hon. Friend will be aware that student nurses can claim child tax credit. However, as the skills White Paper highlighted, we need to make sure that there is better co-ordination between the support provided for students and support generally for people on benefits. About 400,000 people who are receiving support through the benefits system are pursuing further education, but we recognise the need to work with our colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills to make sure that we fit the various pieces of the jigsaw together.

    Private Pensions
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: If he will make a statement on private pension provision. [153182]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith): The Government are committed to encouraging private funded provision by people who can afford to save. As set out in the document that we published last week, we want to empower individuals to take control of their retirement planning with the information that they need to make informed choices about working and saving. That is complemented by the Government's legislative programme of member protection and simplification. The Government are also committed to action, including legislation, to combat age discrimination and give people more choice about the timing and pace of their retirement.
    Mr. Robathan: The Secretary of State said that the Government are encouraging private pension provision, but he will not be unaware of the decline in the value of pension funds over the past couple of years, largely due to the stock market decline. At the same time, however, as a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, does he acknowledge that the Government played a role, because after the abolition of advance corporation tax in 1997 there was a pension fund raid, which took —35 billion out of pension funds? How will that encourage people to make private pension provision?
    Mr. Smith: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's argument. He omitted to mention that the dividend tax credit—I believe that that is what he was referring to—was part of a thoroughgoing reform of corporate taxation, which included 3p in the pound off the rate of corporation tax. Moreover, while his colleagues on the Front Bench shed many crocodile tears about this, they have made no commitment to reverse the policy.

    Occupational Pensions
    Mr. Peter Luff: When he last met representatives of trade unions to discuss the future of occupational pension schemes. [153184]
    The Minister for Pensions: We have frequent contacts with trade unions and other partners concerning pensions. For example, 1 met the general secretary of the TUC, Brendan Barber, shortly before Christmas. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met members of the TUC last week to discuss issues concerning women and pensions.
    Mr. Luff: I am glad to hear that the Government are talking to representatives of workers, such as workers affected by the collapse of company pension schemes. In those discussions with trade unions and victims of collapsed schemes such as Kalamazoo, which affected many of my constituents, would it not help us if we knew the exact cost of retrospective compensation? At Question Time a month ago, the Secretary of State said in answer to a question from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg):
    "These are precisely the issues that the Government have been looking into. When I am in a position to report to the House on the outcome of these inquiries and deliberations, I shall of course do so."—[Official Report, 12 January 2004; Vol.416, c. 514.]
    1116
    When will we know the cost of retrospective compensation?
    Malcolm Wicks: In terms of listening to sensible suggestions and reflecting on these matters, the issue of cost is obviously vital. That is why it is a complex issue. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that cost issues must be considered in this context. Sadly, I cannot add to what has been said by me and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State this afternoon on this important issue.
    Paul Flynn: Why did my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say that he is reluctant to compensate occupational pensioners retrospectively because a substantial proportion of the public are not occupational pensioners, when 100 per cent. of average families are paying £16 a week in compensation and subsidies to farmers even though 99 per cent. of them are not farmers?
    Malcolm Wicks: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that that issue—that most taxpayers are probably not members of final salary schemes—is one that we must take into account in assessing the proposals that are put to us.

    Incapacity Benefit
    Mr Dave Watts: What measures he is taking to help those on incapacity benefit to get back to work. [153185]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): We are committed to ensuring that people on sickness and incapacity benefits get support to return to work. The new deal for disabled people has already helped more than 25,000 placements of people into work. But we recognise that we need to do more. That is why we are piloting the measures in "pathways to work", giving people on incapacity benefits early and continuing support from specialist advisers, access to a range of condition management programmes, and improved financial incentives for returning to work.
    Mr. Watts: May I inform my hon. Friend that unemployment in my constituency is now down to 3 per cent? However, there are still 13,000 people on incapacity benefit in St. Helens. The local authority and the chamber of commerce are putting together a plan to try to deal with this important matter. Will my hon. Friend assure me that her Department will do all that it can to support this important initiative?
    Maria Eagle: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I am glad to hear him say that there are some locally devised programmes that are being considered in addition to what we are trying to do nationally. We are talking of one of the great remaining challenges in respect of employment. We know that there are many people on sickness and incapacity benefit—up to 1 million—who say, according to surveys, that they would like to work. Until recently there has not been enough help in place to ensure that they can meet that ambition. We are determined to ensure that we find the best way of putting support into place, and that is what we are trying to do.

    Disability Discrimination Act
    Mr. Anthony D. Wright: What plans he has to publicise the introduction of changes in 2004 to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [153186]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): In October, those providing goods, services and facilities, whether for payment or not, will have to make reasonable adjustments to physical barriers that prevent access for disabled people. At the same time, the obligation not to discriminate against disabled people in employment will be extended to employers of fewer than 15 staff. These are welcome improvements for disabled people. We are undertaking information work to advertise these new requirements in conjunction with the Disability Rights Commission. This includes direct mail, advertising, website and media activity in addition to recognising those who do well through initiatives such as "access all areas" awards.
    Mr. Wright: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. I congratulate her and the Government on doing more
    1118
    for disabled people than any other Government in the past 25 years. With the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the Government will extend the definition of disability to certain groups, including those with HIV infection, cancer and multiple sclerosis. I ask the Minister also to consider those people who suffer from ME, which has now again been recognised by the Government and by the chief medical officer as a debilitating illness and one that should be recognised as falling within the Disability Discrimination Act.
    Maria Eagle: I know that my hon. Friend is the chair of the all-party group on ME, and I congratulate him on his interest in the subject, which has not always been top of the popularity lists, so I am grateful to him for taking such an interest. I am not aware of any difficulties encountered by those with ME that relate to the definition in the Disability Discrimination Act. Unlike cancer and HIV, where people can suffer discrimination in advance of having any symptoms, it would be unusual for anyone to be diagnosed with ME before they had had symptoms. However, if he is aware of any specific problems in his capacity as a Member of Parliament or as chairman of the all-party group, I would be more than happy to listen to what he has to say on the subject.

Morecambe Bay (Deaths)
3.30 pm
Geraldine Smith: (urgent question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the measures that the Government intend to introduce to regulate the activities and operations of gangmasters following the recent tragedy in Morecambe bay.
The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): I start by underlining the fact that the death of 19 Chinese cocklers in Morecambe bay is a human tragedy. The deaths happened in horrific circumstances and shocked the local community, as they shocked us all. I recognise that the first reaction of my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) and her local constituents was that of human sympathy for the dead and the survivors. We extend our sympathy to the families and friends of all involved.
This incident is not the first involving migrant or illegal workers, but it involves the largest number of work-related deaths since the Piper Alpha tragedy some years ago. We must do all that we can to prevent another tragedy of this sort. The efforts of the rescue services were exemplary and I pay tribute to the professionals involved and to the local volunteers, who played a vital and courageous part in the rescue attempts.
Lancashire police have already made significant progress in their hunt for the people involved in organising the cockle pickers, and three men and two women have been arrested. While the police investigations are continuing, it would be premature to comment further on the specfics of the case.
The exploitative activities of some gangmasters are already well understood. Gangmasters bring together and supply a flexible work force to meet the changing demands of employers. Historically, that activity has been associated with planting and harvesting agricultural crops, but, as this latest incident shows, gangmasters appear to be becoming active in other areas too. The Government have been active in seeking to tackle this difficult and complex area, and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has undertaken an extremely helpful inquiry.
The activity undertaken by gangmasters is not inherently illegal, and some run legitimate businesses. Indeed, there are farmers and growers who would face great difficulties without such a supply of labour. However, it is clear that a number of gangmasters meet shortages of seasonal and casual labour, in the agricultural and horticultural sectors in particular, by supplying non-EU citizens working in the UK illegally. They are also known to supply UK nationals working illegally while in receipt of benefit. Other illegal activity includes non-payment of the minimum wage, tax, national insurance and VAT. Those abuses of workers, some of whom do not have a voice due to their illegal status, cannot be condoned.
It has been suggested that the cockle picking industry in Morecambe bay should be regulated further. Cockling in Morecambe bay is regulated by the North Western and North Wales sea fisheries committee,
1120
operating under byelaws confirmed by DEFRA. Some 700 permits have been issued to individual fishermen to date. Numbers cannot be restricted under the current permit scheme. Further, sea fisheries committees have no powers to limit public activity in the bay to daylight hours on safety grounds. It is not clear at this stage whether the Chinese cocklers involved in last week's tragedy had permits. Applicants have to provide proof of identity, such as a national insurance number, and photographic identification.
There have also been calls for regulation of gangmasters, as my hon. Friend said in her question. As I explained to the House last week, DEFRA fully supports the work of Operation Gangmaster. That coordinates enforcement activity in relation to gangmasters and brings together the key Departments with an interest, which include the Department for Work and Pensions, which takes the lead, the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise, the immigration service and others, including DEFRA, as required. As I reported to the House last week, this work is delivering results. However, incidents such as the one in Morecambe bay last week show that we cannot relax our efforts.
The Gangmaster (Licensing) Bill, a private Member's Bill, will be presented to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan) for Second Reading on 27 February. The Bill seeks to curb the exploitative activities of gangmasters operating in agriculture by introducing a statutory licensing scheme. The Government fully support the objectives of the Bill. Like hon. Members in all parts of the House, the Government wish to see an end to the misery and exploitation that unscrupulous gangmasters operating outside the law can cause. The Government's normal approach is to consider alternatives to statutory regulation first, and we have been working very closely with the Ethical Trading Initiative to establish whether an industry-led accreditation scheme would be effective in curbing the exploitative activities of certain gangmasters. That work is continuing.
In this case, we appear to be dealing with criminal gangs. Such people will take no notice of a non-statutory solution. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire said on the radio this morning, we can never legislate for people who are determined to undermine any kind of laws. The Government have not ruled out legislation, although we have yet to reach a final conclusion on the merits of a statutory licensing scheme. However, I recognise the depth of support that he has for his Bill, and we are carefully considering it with colleagues in other Departments. If a licensing scheme is introduced, the work done in association with the Ethical Trading Initiative will provide a valuable contribution to any statutory licensing scheme that may be introduced.
Gangmasters who operate outside the law cannot be allowed to continue to put workers' lives at risk. The Government will therefore ensure that the full force of the law is brought to bear on those committing these crimes.
Geraldine Smith: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comments, and especially his very positive comments about possible regulation of gangmasters. I

1121
hope that he will support the private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan) and that Government time will be provided to allow it to proceed through Parliament.
I appreciate the fact that my right hon. Friend sent a message of condolence to the families and friends of the 19 young people who died so tragically last Thursday evening while picking cockles in Morecambe bay. What happened has appalled people in my constituency. There is a deep sense of sorrow and sympathy, and people feel that some good must come out of this appalling tragedy. May I, too, pay tribute to the magnificent efforts of the emergency services, which acted in atrocious weather conditions on Thursday night and worked so hard, displaying remarkable courage? They were fantastic and they deserve our full support.
What measures could be introduced to regulate public fisheries such as Morecambe bay? At present, just about anyone can collect cockles 2 miles out into the bay. Often, they will know little or nothing of the dangers of Morecambe bay. What can we do to improve health and safety, and what urgent steps can be taken? One thing that we should think of doing immediately is closing that public fishery during the hours of darkness. People should not be working out in Morecambe bay in the dark. I will be interested to hear my right hon. Friend's comments. Will he arrange for me to meet the Fisheries Minister as soon as possible can so that we can consider possible legislation for Morecambe bay?
Finally, I hope that some good comes out of this appalling tragedy. I hope that we can stop the exploitation not only of foreign workers, but of British workers. Some of these gangmasters are absolutely despicable, ruthless and evil people. The reputable gangmasters—after all, there are some decent people who employ casual labour, and we must give them our support—would welcome legislation. I would like the Government to support the private Member's Bill or introduce legislation as soon as possible.
Alun Michael: On my hon. Friend's last point, I agree that exploitation must be tackled, whoever the victims are. Anything we can do to strengthen the hands of those who provide important labour legitimately while observing proper health and safety and employment regulation must be right. My hon. Friend is right that some good must come out of such a tragedy. I endorse everything she said about the courage of the rescue workers and the conditions in which they had to work.
My hon. Friend asked about the regulation of access and for action to close off access during the hours of darkness. Members will recognise the common sense of that proposal. However, access is regulated under the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966, which allows closure of access for fisheries reasons, such as conservation of stocks and protection of the environment. There is not the ability to do what she suggests through that avenue. We are looking at whether other legislation would allow access to be closed for public safety reasons. If that proves to be impossible, clearly we will have to look at ways to tackle the issue.
1122
I am sure that the Fisheries Minister would be pleased to meet my hon. Friend to discuss these matters. I and other ministerial colleagues are happy to respond to the concerns that she has raised, which have been raised over time by a number of organisations, including the Transport and General Workers Union, which supports the private Member's Bill.
Mr. James Paice: On behalf of the Opposition, I join in the expressions of sympathy and condolence to the families and friends of those who died in such horrendous circumstances. In particular, I join the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) in paying
tribute to her constituents and others—the lifeboat and helicopter crews, the coastguard and the police—who risked their own lives in trying to save others.
It seems clear to me that those who lost their lives were victims in many different ways, not just because they lost their lives, but because they were working for gangmasters for very little money while living in conditions that would seem squalid to all of us. Like the Minister, I welcome the news of some arrests earlier today, but clearly we await the outcome of those investigations.
Many people will be concerned by the Minister's words. Is it not the truth that the tragedy sadly highlights the failure of the Government's policy on illegal working and on immigration and asylum, and their failure to fulfil their own commitments to combat unscrupulous gangmasters and remove illegal immigrants? Those of us who represent East Anglian constituencies know full well the role of good gangmasters in the food industry. The majority are fully legitimate, look after their staff and are used by responsible farmers and growers. But there is ample evidence—there has been for some time—that perhaps up to 1,000 are not so scrupulous.
Last year's Select Committee report, to which the Minister referred, stated:
"It appears to us that Operation Gangmaster serves as a convenient reference point for Ministers to give the impression that the Government is doing far more about dealing with the problems associated with gangmasters than is the case."
That was partly based on the statement of Lord Whitty in evidence to the Committee, when he said:
"We do not have a sufficiently comprehensive view of the situation."
If that is the case, why not?
Operation Gangmaster has been in existence for six months. Only three months before that statement, the Government had to respond to the private Member's Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds). The Government did not give that Bill a clear passage.
The last Conservative Government's Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 made it unlawful to employ any illegal immigrants. In the first four years, there were a total of 34 prosecutions. In 2001, there was just one. How many prosecutions have there been since then?
In recent months, sadly, three suspected Kurdish gang workers were killed in collision with a train in Worcestershire. Following a house fire in King's Lynn, 36 Chinese were discovered living there illegally and working in the food industry. That led to 60 arrests. Can

1123
the Minister tell the House how many of those people were deported? In November 2002, 20 illegal Chinese workers were arrested in the Wirral after returning from a cockling expedition. How many of them were deported? In August 2003, 37 suspected illegal Chinese workers were arrested in Morecambe bay. How many of them were deported? Last year, the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration is reported to have said:
"The Government is cracking down on illegal working and making good progress in removing increasing numbers of immigration offenders from the UK."
Can the Minister tell us how many have been removed?
In the case of this tragedy, it is reported that nine of the survivors were asylum seekers and five were unknown to the authorities. How was it that the Government did not know where those asylum seekers were? What happened to the tracking systems that the Government were going to introduce? Do the Government agree with the reported remarks of Thomas Chan of the Chinese in Britain Forum that the problem will continue unless the Government are more robust about illegal immigration?
Is it not clear that, as many people have said, this was a tragedy waiting to happen? The Government knew of the presence of large numbers of illegal immigrants working in Morecambe bay and of the risks involved in working there, but they did nothing. Within 48 hours of the tragedy, the police were able to track down the gangmasters and to make the arrests that we have heard about, whereas the Government agencies had failed for months and years. The Home Secretary appears on the media to declare that we need more migrant workers, yet does nothing to combat the ruthless exploitation of migrants who are working illegally for slave wages. Does not this tragedy expose the hypocrisy of inaction from a Government who talk tough but act weak while the vulnerable pay the price?
Alun Michael: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his initial words, including his conclusion that these individuals appear to have been victims in a variety of ways, but it is a pity that he took the opportunity to try to score political points, given that this Government have acted on this whole area, yet the previous Government did not. I think that he will find that his remarks were ill judged.
The hon. Gentleman asked why we do not have a comprehensive view of what is going on. That point was addressed by my noble Friend Lord Whitty in another place. The reason is that we have a complex, changing problem that involves illegal activity. By definition, people do not undertake illegal activity in the open, so it is an area of considerable difficulty.
The hon. Gentleman referred to several events that are in the public domain precisely because the Government and a variety of agencies are working together to tackle the problem. He rightly said that the Home Secretary has referred to wishing to see legitimate workers coming into this country to work. We need people working seasonally in this country, but they should be legitimate workers, not people who are being exploited in the way that the Select Committee identified.
The hon. Gentleman asked what the Government are doing about the problem. In 2002–03, the positive outcomes achieved against gangmasters and their
1124
employees included the identification by the Department for Work and Pensions of 235 overpayments and 1,023 adjustments to benefits worth £405,000, thereby securing 138 sanctions and prosecutions. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman wanted to know whether there have been prosecutions, but when I give him the answer, all he can do is mock. I wish that he would take the issue more seriously.
The Inland Revenue's specialist teams settled 46 inquiries and reviews, identifying unpaid tax and national insurance worth £4.3 million. There have been criminal prosecutions of 14 gangmasters for VAT offences, involving VAT of £5.9 million and resulting in prison sentences totalling 31 years. We do not say that enough has been done; that is why we are looking at the matter across Departments. In the past couple of weeks, I have had meetings with colleagues about what we can do to strengthen the work of Operation Gangmaster and to consider the private Member's Bill. The Government are determined to tackle the problem.
Mr. Hilton Dawson: Nothing can take away the wicked responsibility of the people who placed those poor souls and their fellow workers on the sands of Morecambe bay in such dangerous circumstances. However, in reviewing all aspects of the terrible tragedy, will the Government consider the effects of clause 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and the potential effect of clause 7 of the Asylum (Treatment of Claimants, Etc.) Bill to ascertain whether making those who are perhaps failed asylum seekers destitute helps to create some of the circumstances in which people can be so cruelly and disgracefully exploited?
Alun Michael: I agree with my hon. Friend's first point about exploitation and the need to eradicate it. His point about the withdrawal of family income support applies to people whose applications for asylum have failed. That is a totally different set of circumstances. People who come into the country illegally may be exploited and such exploitation needs to be tackled, but that is not directly relevant to the problems that we are considering.
Norman Baker: On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, may I express our horror at the human tragedy in Morecambe, our sympathy to the families of those who were lost and our thanks to the emergency services and others who performed so well, as always, last week? Does not such an incident bring shame on our country? We have uncovered circumstances in which up to 30 or 40 people were living in a house and in some cases being paid as little as £1 a day for nine hours of back-breaking work. All of us should be concerned about that and learn lessons from it.
Should not we do more to prosecute those who appear to be content cruelly to exploit migrant workers and pay them a pittance while making huge sums? Is the Minister aware that the revised figures issued last November show that, since 1997, there were only 22 prosecutions and eight convictions for employing a person subject to immigration controls? Although he referred to other prosecutions regarding VAT and so on, is he satisfied that the law is adequate and that sufficient enforcement is deployed to ensure that those responsible are caught and prosecuted?

1125
I am bound to reflect that the gangmasters are rightly being ruthlessly pursued in the case that we are considering—I am delighted by the law enforcement authorities' actions—but locals have known about such activity for some time. That suggests that this tragedy and others might have been avoided.
I do not want to make this a party political point—the human tragedy is too great—but hon. Members from all parties must learn from it. The Select Committee on Environment, Fisheries and Food stated that it was
"appalled by the lack of priority given to … illegal activity by gangmasters."
I hope that we all find ways to try to deal with that. It also said that
"no significant resources had been allocated",
to Operation Gangmaster, that it had no targets and that there was no Minister to take overall responsibility. We might all have been caught unawares, but we must now try to deal with the issues and ensure that such an incident does not happen again.
Will the Minister deal with the Select Committee's points, especially those about resources and ministerial responsibilities? Will he comment on links with the Home Office, the Department for Work and Pensions and especially the immigration service to ensure that the Government are providing as joined-up a response as possible? Does he accept that, although there is a need to regularise economic migration. thereby providing a genuine outlet for those whom we need in this country, there is an absolute need to clamp down on those who improperly exploit migrant workers?
Will the Minister consider the suggestion of a requirement on farmers and growers to sign a form for the Home Office saying that they will pass on details of subcontractors responsible for employing labour? It would not have helped in the case that we are discussing, but it would provide some chance of keeping a check on some of the activities.
Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman makes several important points and I am grateful for the constructive way in which he raised each issue. He is right to say that it is shameful that such circumstances exist and that "all of us"—his term—should do all that we can to eradicate such activity and prevent any such incident from happening again.
We need to do more to prosecute those who are responsible. That is why so much work is going on throughout Government. As I said earlier, we are considering a complex and changing sphere of activity, where people are making a lot of money. Some people are undertaking that activity legitimately and others are not. It is important to get the best possible intelligence and co-operation between Departments, as he also pointed out, to achieve the best possible outcome.
A variety of different ways exist in which prosecution can be undertaken because of the variety of different offences, whether in relation to health and safety, avoiding payment of tax or paying below the minimum wage. We are considering carefully whether the different forms of offence and enforcement can be simplified so that enforcement by all the agencies involved can be easier and simpler.
1126
The hon. Gentleman referred to the lack of targets in respect of Operation Gangmaster. There has been very good co-operation, as I know from talking to my noble Friend Lord Whitty, who has lead responsibility in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and has been doing a lot of work with colleagues. An effort has been made to get under the surface of the problems to their roots to see how to tackle and prevent such activity. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that co-operation is strong.
It is difficult to set meaningful targets unless the scale of the problem to be eradicated is known. Targets for prosecution, for instance, do not necessarily help towards a minimisation of the activity. We need to improve the instruments available for the authorities so that undertaking such illegal activity does not pay. That is what we are trying to consider in terms of how the law might be treated.
On the hon. Gentleman's point about passing on details, anyone who knows anything about this tragedy, or about other examples given by various hon. Members of people being put in impossible and unacceptable conditions, should feed that information to the authorities. We are trying to make sure that the authorities exchange information between each other so that enforcement can be crisp and effective on every occasion.
Mr. Andrew Miller: My right hon. Friend will know that, after the successful joint departmental action on 6 August last year in the Dee estuary, I wrote to the chief officers of all the Departments concerned to congratulate them on the work that they had undertaken. He will also know how difficult that action was, as although 420 people were interviewed and there were hundreds of questionable activities and offences, no illegal immigrants were identified. Will he ensure that any regulatory changes, including those with regard to the Dee estuary, which comes under a different regime—that of the Environment Agency Walesߞhave teeth? Clearly, toothless regulations are pointless. Will he ensure that the regulations target primarily those who co-ordinate the illegal activities: the ruthless gangmasters who appear to be responsible for the terrible tragedy that we have seen this weekend, which could occur in many other places around our coast unless co-ordinated action is taken—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members' supplementary questions must be brief.
Alun Michael: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. He refers rightly to the operations on the Dee estuary and to what those revealed. He identifies the heart of the problem by saying that this is a difficult and complex area. We always ought to bear it in mind in this place that laws cannot always prevent what they forbid. It is important not only to regulate but to make sure that regulations are enforceable. In many ways, what we need is an antisocial behaviour order for gangmasters rather than an increased bureaucracy. That is the way in which Departments are approaching the matter:

1127
looking for that which is effective to try to nip the problem in the bud rather than increasing the bureaucracy involved. I take my hon. Friend's points about making sure that regulations are enforceable to heart.
Mr. Tim Collins: Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the professional and volunteer rescue workers from the northern end of Morecambe bay—including Arnside,
Grange-over-Sands and Kendal in my constituency— who took part in the activities on Thursday night? This was a real tragedy, and it was a horrendous night for everyone.
Will the Minister also understand, however, that there is real anger about all this in my constituency? Why, for months and months, were warnings from local residents and members of the legitimate Morecambe bay fishing community ignored? Why was no action taken until Friday morning? If it was so hard to find out what was going on and where it was going on, why were journalists—both local and national—able to track down dozens of people taking part in this activity within hours on Friday morning? Has there not been a gross dereliction of duty on the part of many of those responsible? Why has it taken bloodshed for action to be taken? Is it not time for Ministers to accept that there is a right and a wrong way for people to come into this country, and that members of ethnic communities who are scrupulous in observing the right regulations and legislation are among those who are angriest about the hundreds of thousands of people in our country who do not obey our laws and do not pay our taxes because of a Government who will not enforce proper border controls?
Alun Michael: There is a right and a wrong way to raise a point in the Chamber, if I may say so.
I certainly join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to people from his constituency who were involved in the rescue effort. Indeed, I pay tribute to those who contributed to that effort, wherever they came from. It was a great credit to all of them, and it is a tragedy that those skills and that bravery had to be demonstrated in such tragic circumstances.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that warnings had been ignored. It is always easy to place more emphasis on warnings after the event than before, but the circumstances, and how this came about, will need to be examined carefully. If there were warnings that were ignored, we will certainly need to look into it, but I am not aware that that is the case.
The hon. Gentleman also suggested that journalists had been able to track people down immediately after the event. The police, too, appear to have been able to
work very quickly. It sometimes takes an event—a tragedy—of this sort for a lot of information that has not been made available before suddenly to be made available. I hope that one of the consequences of what has happened will be that anyone anywhere in the country who knows of individuals being exploited will inform the authorities, whether those people are being exploited in the way that may have been involved in this case—we do not have all the facts yet—or in the manner
1128
highlighted by the report of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Regional Affairs, so that together we can do all we can to avoid future tragedies.
Jim Sheridan: My Gangmaster (Licensing) Bill seeks only to protect workers wherever they are in Britain, regardless of their status in this country. I agree with what my right hon. Friend said about the work of the TGWU and other coalition partners who have supported the Bill. Does he agree with me that the voluntary code is not working, and that it is time for effective legislation? Can he flesh out what he said about sharing the objectives of the Bill, and help to end the human misery of what can only be described as modern slavery in today's society? Is it not time to move on? If it had been 19 dogs that had died at Morecambe bay, the RSPCA would have launched a criminal investigation to ensure that it did not happen again. A life is a life, whether it is the life of a dog or the life of a Chinese worker. Effective legislation must be provided to give protection.
Alun Michael: I certainly agree that whoever is affected by a tragedy of this sort, human sympathy is needed. We must learn the lessons, and ensure that wherever possible such tragedies cannot happen in the future.
My hon. Friend mentioned the work of the TGWU and its co-operation with other organisations. They include the National Farmers Union—and I must say that seeing the TGWU and the NFU on the same side gives one pause for thought. A number of organisations, including some representing the retail trade, are cooperating with a wide variety of interests, all of which understand different parts—different strands—of this complex problem.
We share my hon. Friend's wish for measures that can help to end exploitation. We want to ensure that any legislation is effective, rather than only appearing to tackle the problem, or increasing the amount of bureaucracy without preventing the evils that my hon. Friend and I, along with my colleagues throughout Government, want to be eradicated.
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The Minister has spoken of the need for the Government to know the scale of the problem, yet Operation Gangmaster has been in existence since 1998. What has it been able to do to inform the Government about the number of migrant workers employed illegally by gangmasters? If it has not been able to provide that information, is he disappointed?
Alun Michael: It is always disappointing to know that there is a problem and to try to deal with it when it is difficult to pin down its scale, but, as I indicated earlier, no previous Govt took the steps that we have taken to try to tackle the problem—not just to measure it but actually to deal with it. I referred earlier to the public money that has been recovered and to the prosecutions that have taken place. We have made progress, but I agree with Members on both sides of the House that more needs to be done, so I hope that minds will have been concentrated in all organisations, as well as in the Government, to ensure that that happens in future.
Ms Diane Abbott: The House is aware both of the need

1129
for seasonal casual labour in agriculture and of the strong emphasis that the Home Secretary has put on dealing with traffickers in illegal immigrants, but those 19 dead Chinese young people were treated little better than 19th-century coolie labour. Whatever people's immigration status, no one in Britain wants them to be treated like that—no one is mourning them, no one has claimed their bodies and their nearest and dearest probably still do not know that they are dead—so I urge the Minister to look very seriously indeed at licensing gangmasters.
Alun Michael: I have already indicated to the House that we are looking carefully at the private Member's Bill being promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire. Police activities are under way at present, so we should await full information before jumping to conclusions on some of the issues involved. It is difficult to respond to every aspect in this debate; there is the tragedy that took place last week in specific circumstances, but also the general activities of gangmasters about which the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee and many Members have made observations. Although we can talk about the general, the specific will need specific answers when we have full information and the result of the investigations.
Mr. Peter Luff: The Minister speaks of minds being concentrated by the tragedy, but should not minds in Government have been concentrated by the tragedy in my constituency seven months ago when three exploited vulnerable agricultural workers travelling in a minibus were killed by the train in which I was travelling? Is it not true that although personal tragedy is a real reason for quiet voices in the Chamber, it does not mean that the Government can escape criticism for inaction? The Government's response to the report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on gangmasters, although full of fine words and platitudes, shows no sense of urgency to deal with the problem. When will the Government show that sense of urgency?
Alun Michael: The trouble is that the House sometimes shows a sense of urgency when a tragedy
1130
takes place—not only the one last week but the one in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, to which he referred—yet the work of the Government goes on between such events. From discussions with Lord Whitty, who has been working with colleagues across the Government, I know how much work has been going on to tackle the problem of gangmasters and those who are exploited by them. It is not right to underestimate the amount of work and effort, not just of Ministers and Departments but also of those who work in the enforcement agencies. I referred in an earlier response to the figures that demonstrate how much work is being done. We are dealing with a difficult and almost intractable problem, to try to find mechanisms that will really work to eradicate it. I agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) that the problem is important and that we should concentrate on it—that is why the Government are indeed concentrating on it.
Mr. John Denham: My right hon. Friend said that he would use the full force of the law. Does he accept that the fines in prosecutions for the employment of illegal labour are at trivial levels? Will he now act on the recommendation, made just two weeks ago by the all-party Select Committee on Home Affairs, that the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which can be used to seize the assets of drug dealers and of people traffickers, should also be used to seize the assets of those people who employ illegal workers and subject them to the sort of conditions in which tragedies happen?
Alun Michael: There are examples bordering on the trivial, and I agree with my right hon. Friend on the need for concern about that. I believe that in a recent case a fine of about £100 was given, which clearly does not get across the message that the matter is taken seriously by the courts, or, indeed, by Parliament, but responses from Members on both sides of the House demonstrate the seriousness with which the House approaches the matter. Fines of up to £5,000 are possible, and I believe that it applies per worker, so we could have multiples of £5,000 fines in respect of the number of people employed. We shall certainly keep the matter under review.

UK Supreme Court
4.10 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): With permission, I should like to repeat a statement made in the other place by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs on the proposed new UK supreme court.
On 14 July we published for consultation our proposals to establish a supreme court for the United Kingdom. We published last week a summary of responses, and today I am setting out our plans in detail—a key element of our comprehensive programme of constitutional modernisation and reform, aimed at enhancing the credibility and effectiveness of public institutions and increasing trust and accountability.
Just as our proposals on the judicial functions of the office of Lord Chancellor rest on the separation of powers between the judiciary and the Executive, so too with our court system: we believe that the time is right to make a clear and transparent separation between the judiciary and the legislature. By creating a supreme court, we will separate fully the final court of appeal from Parliament.
Nothing in the proposal intends or implies any criticism of the way in which the current Appellate Committee or its members have discharged their functions. They are not in the other place today, because they are at work hearing cases. They have asked for it to be made clear that they do not intend any discourtesy by their absence: indeed, it is another manifestation of the singular consequences of situating our highest court within the legislature. The Government take the view that, as part of our plans to sustain and enhance the vital independence of the judiciary, the present position is no longer sustainable. The time has come for the UK's highest court to move out from under the shadow of the legislature.
The Government have been in close consultation with the Law Lords since these proposals were announced and they are aware of the detailed proposals being put before Parliament today. We will introduce legislation to create a supreme court. Under our proposals, the supreme court for the United Kingdom will replace the existing system whereby the Law Lords operate as a Committee of the House of Lords. The supreme court will exercise the same appellate jurisdiction as the Appellate Committee exercises, in respect both of the courts from which appeals may lie and of reviews by appellate petition. There will be no changes to the rules governing leave to appeal.
The supreme court will also take over the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in respect of devolution issues under the Scotland Act 1998, the Government of Wales Act 1998 and the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The creation of a separate and freestanding supreme court does not in any way imply the creation of a new body of United Kingdom law. Being the ultimate court of appeal in the UK does not mean that the court hears "UK appeals".
As is currently the case with hearings in the Appellate Committee, decisions made in an appeal from a court in one of the three jurisdictions within the UK will he of
1132
binding effect only within that jurisdiction, and of persuasive effect in the others. Only on devolution issues, as at present, will the decisions of the court be binding in all legal proceedings. The avenues of appeals from Scottish courts will remain the same for the supreme court as they were for the House of Lords, so that only Scottish civil appeals will be heard by the new supreme court. The final court of appeal for criminal cases in Scotland will continue to be the High Court of Justiciary.
As the key objective is to achieve a full and transparent separation between the judiciary and the legislature, it follows that justices of the supreme court, other holders of full-time judicial office, or retired justices of the supreme court who continue to sit, will no longer be entitled to sit or to vote in the House of Lords, or to participate in the work of Parliament for as long as they hold their judicial appointment. The same will apply to the Lord Chief Justice, the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Master of the Rolls. I pay tribute to the valuable contribution to the work of the other place that they and the Law Lords have made.
Judges of the new supreme court will be known as "Justices of the Supreme Court". We propose that the first 12 justices will be those holding office as Lords of Appeal in Ordinary at the commencement of the new supreme court. Two of them are from Scotland and one from Northern Ireland, so their appointment would ensure an appropriate balance of expertise across the UK at the creation of the new court, as well as providing continuity. Qualifications for appointments will be unchanged.
Appointments will be made on the recommendation of a new supreme court appointments commission, to be convened when there is an actual or impending vacancy. The composition of the commission—consisting of members of the appointments commissions from across the United Kingdom, with Members of Parliament and the Government ineligible for membership—guarantees nominations free from political interference and influence. The president of the supreme court will chair the appointments commission and the deputy president will also be an ex-officio member. That will ensure a proper balance of lay and judicial input to its deliberations. The commission will consider candidates eligible for appointment by reference to criteria that have been approved by Parliament, subject to the overriding principle of merit. It will have a duty, each time it meets, to survey the field of all eligible candidates across the three jurisdictions and focus on the most meritorious.
The commission will recommend to the Secretary of State a minimum of two and a maximum of five candidates for each vacancy. On receipt of the nominations, the Secretary of State will be under a statutory duty to ensure that the court has, among its members, sufficient knowledge and expertise of the law in each United Kingdom jurisdiction. In doing so, he will be required to consult the senior judiciary in each of those three jurisdictions. The Secretary of State will then submit a name from the shortlist to the Prime Minister, who will make a recommendation to Her Majesty accordingly. There will also be an obligation to canvass the views of the First Minister of Scotland, the First Minister of Wales and the First Minister and Deputy

1133
First Minister of Northern Ireland, if responsibility for criminal justice matters has been devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
The requirement for a longer shortlist than is presented to the Secretary of State for vacancies for judicial offices in England and Wales derives from the UK-wide jurisdiction of the supreme court. Justices of the supreme court must be the best available in the UK as a whole, but the court must always contain the necessary breadth of experience of each constituent jurisdiction. To balance those requirements, it will he necessary for the Secretary of State to consult on a wider range of candidates. It is envisaged that there would never be less than two Scottish justices, and there would normally be one justice from Northern Ireland.
The supreme court will be administered as a distinct constitutional entity. Special arrangements will apply to its budgetary and financial arrangements to reflect its unique status, and it will present annual reports, which will be made available not only to the Westminster Parliament, but to the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the National Assembly for Wales. The chief executive, who will be appointed through fair and open competition, will be responsible for accounting for the court's finances and will report on a day-to-day basis directly to the justices of the court. The court will have a staff of its own, working to that chief executive.
The supreme court will stand at the apex of the judicial systems of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. As such, it is appropriate that it should be based in London, as the capital city of the United Kingdom. However, it may be appropriate, on occasion, to hear cases—such as devolution cases, or cases raising issues specific to Scottish or Northern Ireland law—in other parts of the United Kingdom. However, it would be for the president of the supreme court to decide when it would be appropriate for it to sit elsewhere.
It is clearly important that the new supreme court should be housed in an appropriate building. I have therefore commissioned an extensive property search to identify suitable locations. That search has been based upon a statement of requirements that has been discussed and agreed with the Law Lords and has considered a wide range of options—both commercial sites and those already on the Government estate. An evaluation is currently being conducted to identify the preferred location. I will seek the views of the Law Lords, the First Ministers of the devolved Administrations and the Lord President of the Council before any final decision is made. Until that process has been completed, it could be prejudicial to our commercial position to disclose all the details. However, I will undertake to inform both Houses of the preferred option at an appropriate time.
There will be other opportunities for debate and scrutiny of those proposals in both Houses. I also look forward to receiving the report of the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs, which will comment not only on the supreme court, but on the judicial appointment commission for England and Wales. I believe that those proposals will result in a supreme court that will be, in the words of the noble and learned Lord Steyn,
1134
"a badge of independence and neutrality … a potent symbol of the allegiance of our country to the rule of law".
Mr. Alan Duncan: I am grateful to the Minister for early sight of the statement. I do not ever want to say that the House should not have statements, but my gratitude is somewhat tempered by our growing despair at the piecemeal manner in which the Government's proposals are unfolding.
The proposals' origins lie in a farcical reshuffle in which the Prime Minister's approach to constitutional matters was paraded as fact and then immediately transformed into fiction. The Lord Chancellor was publicly sawn in half by the Prime Minister—no mean feat, I have to say—and then magically reappeared in a puff of smoke. There then followed a private deal with an incumbent judge, which bypasses proper parliamentary procedures or which, at the very least, has pre-empted them. That was then followed by a statement.
Now, a matter of 14 days later, we have another statement. Apart from an ill-attended debate in Westminster Hall on the supreme court, there has been no debate at all in the House, no public debate on the proposals—let alone any public call for them—and only on Thursday, for the first time, will there be the debate in the Lords, which is long overdue. There have been consultation documents and published reactions to them, but no comprehensive response whatsoever from the Government to that consultation process.
This statement today gives the impression that the Government are making it all up as they go along. It contains no intellectual coherence at all; rather it contains many practical dangers and backward steps. It is a mess. Once again the Government show that they are incapable of understanding the difference between judicial independence and the separation of powers. They use the concepts interchangeably and therefore nonsensically. We have never had the separation of powers, and the Government's illogical appetite for establishing the separation of powers will come at the expense of the effective judicial independence that we already enjoy.
The title of supreme court—in a facile replication of an American name—is itself a misnomer. A supreme court is supreme because it sits in adjudication of any dispute's conformity to the supreme authority of a written constitution. We have no such constitution, and therefore have nothing against which the supremacy of a court has to measure up. Indeed, this very statement admits, "The supreme court will exercise the same appellate jurisdiction as the Appellate Committee exercises". Why then this needless upheaval?
Is there not another logical fallacy in the Government's position when they say, as if they think they are making a valid point, that "the key objective is to achieve a full and transparent separation between the judiciary and the legislature"? That is an absurd notion. The insinuation is that there is some sort of parliamentary influence over the courts. There quite clearly is not. But the influence of judges, with all their expertise within Parliament, is important, and that is going to disappear.
May I add in passing that it is a bit rich for the Lord Chancellor to say that the Law Lords mean no discourtesy by being absent today because they are

1135
sitting in court? It is a most obvious discourtesy that the Lord Chancellor should make his statement when they have no option but to be absent. To describe this diary conflict as "another manifestation of the singular consequences of situating our highest court within the legislature" is a comment of such unparalleled triviality that it leaves the distinct impression that the Lord Chancellor is taking the mickey.
This proposal may separate the judges from the legislature—and for no apparent benefit at all—but it is a perilous step backwards because it will extend the influence of the Executive over the judges. How can it be said that this proposal enhances either the separation of powers, or the independence of the judiciary, when the role of the Secretary of State, probably by then an ambitious youngster on the make sitting in this House— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—has been made central to the proposed judicial appointments procedure? Is it not the case that he will be able to exercise substantial discretion in selecting supreme court judges, and that he will be doing this from a highly politicised office? How is this an improvement on the present role of the Lord Chancellor in the selection of Law Lords, when he is circumscribed by having taken the judge's oath and by the conventions of his ancient office? Why do the Government have such contempt for convention when it has been shown to work so well over such a long period? Is it not the case that whereas the Lord Chancellor takes the judge's oath, the Secretary of State will not? What does the Minister understand by that? Is it not the case that the Lord Chancellor can accept no further political office and is therefore likely to protect judicial independence, whereas a future Secretary of State, who would probably sit in this House, would be subject to no such restriction?
Will the Minister clarify the position of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council? It will continue to deal with appeals from overseas and other matters, so any possible savings from amalgamating the two bodies will not now arise. Will he now drop any such claim?
What is the Government budget for the court building and for staffing the supreme court? Will the Minister confirm that the net cost, apart from judicial salaries, of running the existing Appellate Committee is in the order of a mere £200,000? Will he not accept that, especially in the absence of any perceived need for the proposal, even if it costs only a fraction of the dome it risks bringing discredit and derision to the entire project? How much will the chief executive of the new court be paid? The way things are going, that person's salary alone will double the current net costs of the court.
The Government proposals are a hotch-potch of utterly shallow design. Changes of this magnitude should ideally enjoy consensual support. At the very least, they should have been argued for, shown to be necessary and proved to be better than what they replace. The Government owe it to the country to allow this House pre-legislative scrutiny of the entire package instead of making this fragmented series of announcements.
The whole enterprise is a classic new Labour construct: it wins a momentary headline; it projects an image of radical momentum; it brings no benefit to anyone; it has shallow intellectual roots; it will probably
1136
cost a fortune; and it pollutes a proven structure with the taint of party politics. I say to the Government, "Nice try but bin it—you're wrong".
Mr. Leslie: Well, powerful stuff there, which did not include a single proposal from the Opposition about where they want to take the constitution in this country, whether they would repeal a new supreme court and whether they would reinstate the office of Lord Chancellor. We must find out a little bit more from the Opposition before their conservatism, which is cloaked by the hon. Gentleman's fine language, is exposed to the wider population. [Interruption.] The Opposition obviously do not want to see any change, believe that the status quo is sufficient and do not see any particular problem with a politician sitting at the heart of the judiciary. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Under-Secretary must be heard.
Mr. Leslie: I cannot make out whether the hon. Gentleman is saying that there has been too much scrutiny of the proposals—he bemoans our bringing them to the House for debate—or whether he is saying that there has not been enough scrutiny. On the one hand he attacks the Government for making sure that there is an opportunity to scrutinise the proposals in quite a lot of detail, but on the other he attacks the scrutiny as piecemeal. He must carefully think through his line of attack. It is right to give the details, and the time has come to separate the judiciary from the legislature, not only because the change brings clarity and transparency, but because, more importantly, it creates a more effective Parliament and final court of appeal, which will enable both entities to focus on their core roles.
The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions, one of which was about the title, "supreme court". Somehow he sees the title "supreme court" as inexorably connected with a written constitution, but that is not the case. We can have a supreme court—in effect, our highest court of appeal—and that is what we propose.
The hon. Gentleman raises concerns about how the Executive are perhaps extending their influence over the judiciary, but nothing could be further from the truth. We intend to do precisely the opposite by removing Ministers' powers to be involved in the nomination process for the supreme court. It is also important to take the highest court of appeal out of the political realm by removing it from Parliament. If that is not enhancing independence, I do not know what is.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and said that there was no particular issue on that. However, under that system, if there were to be an appeal on a devolution case that involved the National Assembly or the Scottish Parliament it would be heard, absurdly, by a Committee of the United Kingdom Parliament. That is not a sustainable position, which is why, by removing the highest court of appeal from Parliament, we are seeking to enable a more independent approach, and end that potential conflict of interests.
The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions on the building. As I have explained, we are searching for a potential location for the new supreme court. He

1137
focused on the cost, and it is proper that we take value for money into account, but we must also consider the quality of the facilities required by the highest court in our land. I happen to believe that the justice and court system is an exceptionally important part of our country and deserves the very best facilities available.
The hon. Gentleman needs to reconsider his stance. Parliament makes the laws and the judiciary must apply them. We need that separation of powers, and this forward-looking. modernising step is overdue. I am glad that we can take it now.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Inquiries that I have made to the apex of the Scottish legal establishment suggest that the Scottish position has been carefully addressed and that the establishment in Edinburgh is satisfied, so I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for that. However, is it not essential to the creation of a truly UK body that it be administered and financed separately from the English court system? Is this body to be run through the Department for Constitutional Affairs?
Mr. Leslie: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments on our conclusions on the relationship between the Scottish jurisdiction and the UK supreme court. It is indeed important that we have absolute respect for the three distinct jurisdictions in our country, and his second point touched on that. We do not want the United Kingdom supreme court to become subservient to the England and Wales jurisdiction, and that is not our proposal. As far as possible within the accounting rules that Parliament expects, we want that supreme court to have a separate accounting officer and separate budgetary arrangements. Although there will have to be some accountability to Parliament for all the taxpayers' money that is expended, we recognise the unique position of the UK supreme court in that respect.
Mr. Mark Oaten: I thank the Minister for his advance notice of the statement. Does he recognise, however, that although my party supports the move towards a supreme court, much good will has been lost through the Government's approach to consultation on the exercise? The proposals are designed to build trust in the system, but the Government will need to consult much more properly and widely in the months ahead if they are to gain the trust of the judicial system and Members of Parliament.
On today's announcement, why do the Government want to require up to five names to be put to the Prime Minister? Does the Minister not acknowledge that that could lead to greater interference from the Prime Minister and accusations in the media over his reasons for choosing certain individual names from the list of five? Would it not be better to stick with the suggestion of having just two names in the first place?
Does the Minister have concerns over the loss of expertise? We fully support the planned break in the link between the Lords and the justices, but current knowledge could then be lost from the other place. With that in mind, do the Government plan that those who have served as justices of the supreme court will be able to be appointed to the House of Lords afterwards?
1138
There might then be concerns, however, over accusations of political involvement because the Prime Minister had chosen certain individuals who had served as justices of the supreme court. Further to that, does the Minister have any plans to set an age of retirement for the new justices?
Finally, the new building will be controversial. Will the Minister explain why it has to be sited in London, and will he assure us that the building will not be entirely new, with all the costs involved in that, but will be an existing site?
Mr. Leslie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his approach, which is slightly more constructive than that of the official Opposition. He asked why London is the preferred location. It is an obvious thing to say. but given that London is the capital city of the United Kingdom, it should be the main permanent base for the supreme court. However, it would be open to the president of the supreme court to decide, if required, that the court could occasionally sit elsewhere. I will not rule out or rule in new buildings or refurbished buildings at this stage, as that would be prejudicial to commercial consideration of the matter.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the age of retirement. We propose that 70 should be the normal retirement age for justices of the supreme court, and 75 if they are on the reserve or supplemental list. As for his comments about whether we should remove sitting judges from the second Chamber, I believe that it is right to do so, particularly if we want to underline the separation of the legislature and the judiciary. There is, of course, scope in the proposals for retiring justices to enter the House of Lords after they have concluded their contribution to the justice system. A shortlist of two to five names is necessary in these particular circumstances, given that appointments cover three jurisdictions—Northern Ireland, Scotland, and England and Wales. We need to ensure that we have the capability to reflect the full breadth of knowledge required for all those jurisdictions, and there is scope for that in the shortlisting process. The nomination process will, however, be taken out of politicians' hands, and that is a major step forward.
Mr. David Kidney: Will there be pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft legislation in due course? Looking ahead to the time when the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council loses its UK devolution work load, will my hon. Friend say something about the sustainability of its remaining work load, which consists of the cases that it takes from some Commonwealth countries? In particular, have those countries said anything about his proposals?
Mr. Leslie: On the latter point. the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council will still be required as long as Commonwealth countries need that final court of appeal to be available for their own legal systems. It is a matter for them whether they wish to use it or end such usage. Recently, for example, New Zealand decided not to continue with that relationship, but to end it. However, we will sustain the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for those purposes. Pre-legislative scrutiny is not currently part of the proposals. There have been five months of consultation on proposals for

1139
the supreme court. The period from the beginning of that consultation to the end of legislative consideration will involve about 18 months-worth of scrutiny. It is important that we look at the details but also make progress as soon as we can.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the Minister accept that he is proposing change to an institution that does not require change? In fact, it is working admirably. He has spoken about advancing credibility, improved independence, greater effectiveness and enhanced trust, but does he not understand that the Judicial Committee possesses all those things now, and nothing that he has said will reinforce them? Surely the truth is that we are hearing arguments in favour of change for the sake of change, and are tinkering around with accepted institutions. Such tinkering will increase cost, extend political interference in the choice of senior justices and ultimately bring the system through which we administer the law into disrepute.
Mr. Leslie: I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman takes that view. Improved independence for our judiciary is a cause well worth striving for, and his considerations about cost should not override that—not that the process would necessarily be costly. There is a need for change, as I have said, and not just because the role of the justices is blurred—are they legislators or they are acting in a judicial capacity? There is currently a self-denying ordinance under which Law Lords cannot speak adequately or vote on particular proposals. If they do so, they disqualify themselves from involvement in certain legal matters. That proves that there is a requirement to act, and we need to do so.
Keith Vaz: I strongly welcome my hon. Friend's statement and the detail that he has given to the House. It must be right that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State should be involved in the selection process. That is the nature of democratic accountability. However, will my hon. Friend clarify two points? First, will the person chairing the selection panel be judicially qualified. Secondly, my hon. Friend told the House that the Law Lords were aware of the statement, so can he confirm that the Lord Chancellor will meet the Law Lords to discuss the detail that has been given to the House? As he knows, they were split 50:50 in favour of or against the reforms. It is extremely important that they are fully on board in terms of these proposals.
Mr. Leslie: It is important that my noble Friend the Secretary of State and I engage in debate with all involved in Parliament, not least with the Law Lords as they currently work. We shall continue to have that dialogue and ensure that we refine our proposals. It is important that we have the final passage of the recommendation from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the Queen to make the appointment.
A justice of the supreme court is an important appointment to make and all actions in the name of the Crown need to go through Ministers so that somebody can be accountable to Parliament for that action, even if Ministers are effectively taking the nomination and selection process from a shortlist from an independent
1140
appointments commission. It is envisaged that we shall have the president of the supreme court chairing the appointments panel, so I can satisfy my hon. Friend that there will be legal qualification in that respect in overseeing the work that is carried out. I know that we will continue to work together with my hon. Friend to make sure that we scrutinise these proposals as legislation emerges.
Mr. A. J. Beith: I welcome the fact that the statement addresses a number of concerns that came up in the public evidence sessions that were held by the Constitutional Affairs Committee. May I have some assurance that the more detailed points that the Committee will put in its report tomorrow will be considered carefully in the context of legislation, including our concern about the budget of the supreme court? Will the Minister give an assurance that the Department for Constitutional Affairs, which is effectively an English Department for this purpose, will have no role in the budget of the supreme court? Above all, will the hon. Gentleman listen to the voices of Labour Members as well as Members from other parts of the House who are asking, "Why the rush?" If this is so important, should we not take the necessary time to get it right, by scrutinising legislation in draft and then moving on to do the job properly?
Mr. Leslie: I believe that we are taking the necessary time to get this right. There has been a great deal of consideration, not least from the Select Committee that the right hon. Gentleman chairs, which proves that point. We have had five months of consultation on the document that was published in the summer. I look forward to receiving and reading the report that his Committee will publish tomorrow. The Department for Constitutional Affairs is not just an English Department; it is a UK Department and is capable of being involved in UK issues as well as its devolution responsibilities. I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern about the budgetary arrangements that we put in place to protect the UK position of the supreme court. In our proposals we want to ensure exactly that. We want a separate accounting arrangement and a separate chief executive and staff who belong to the UK supreme court. We are trying our best to ensure that we satisfy that point.
Mr. Clive Soley: My hon. Friend will know that I am a strong supporter of the continuing reform of the British constitution, which is long overdue. Bearing in mind the complexity of the issue, will he tell us a little more about the relationship between the appointments commission and the political process to achieve that? If, as I understand it, between two and five names are to be put forward to the Secretary of State, and then one name to the Prime Minister, will both the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have any powers other than to accept or reject those names? In other words, is there an opportunity for discussion, or is it simple acceptance or rejection of the process? If that has not yet been considered, can we address that issue in the near future?
Mr. Leslie: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting a particular point of importance that we

1141
shall need to discuss as the legislation progresses. My understanding is that the shortlist from the supreme court's appointments commission of between two and five names is precisely to ensure that the Secretary of State can reflect the need for a wide knowledge of all the jurisdictions on the supreme court in his choice, and a single name will go forward to the Prime Minister and then to Her Majesty. My understanding is that the shortlist will be a final shortlist from the appointments commission, but again we need to consider that as the legislation progresses.
Peter Bottomley: I hope that the Minister will confirm that the only time that we did not have a Lord Chancellor was when the Government decided to interfere with the present arrangements for appeals in the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords.
Who responded to the Government's consultation with the recommendation that between two and five names should be put forward for a member of the Cabinet to decide which single name should be recommended by the Prime Minister to the Queen?
Why could the Minister not have held the statement back for at least one day so that the Select Committee's report could have been published in advance of the Government's statement?
Mr. Leslie: We need to ensure that when we have proposals we bring them before Parliament, and that is precisely why I made the statement today.
The hon. Gentleman goes through some of the history of the office of Lord Chancellor, but to have the Lord Chancellor as the head of the judiciary is unsustainable given the political nature of that appointment—and if hon. Members seriously consider that the Lord Chancellor is not a political figure they have not truly understood the nature of that appointment.
I think that we had 174 responses to the consultation, and a number of key stakeholders believed that the appointment at this particular level required the involvement of the Prime Minister in making the final proposal to the Queen, and the responses have been published in a document to which the hon. Gentleman has access.
Mr. Frank Doran: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement, which I hope will lead us to the correction of a long-standing political and legal anomaly in our system. I particularly welcome the possibility that the supreme court will meet in Edinburgh. That is important, and I hope that that will not be an unusual event when the new court gets under way. As a Scots lawyer no longer in practice, I should say that we take a particular pride in the influence that Scots law has had on the development of English law and the transfer of principles south of the border, and that has usually been done through the House of Lords. The most famous case was that of Donoghue v. Stevens in 1932—one Scots lawyer had to mention it, so I will be the one—which radically reformed the English law on
1142
duty of care in contracts, and still influences the law. Will the opportunity for that beneficial flow continue in the new system?
Mr. Leslie:My learned Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) informs me that the case to which my hon. Friend refers involved a snail in ginger beer, but I shall look into that case law. I understand and respect his point about the court having the opportunity to sit in places other than London and we do not want to rule that out. It would be for the court to determine where it wanted to sit, but it would be able to sit in Edinburgh.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: Does the Minister recall that in the debate on 16 December I brought to his attention the evidence of Lord Hope of Craighead to the Constitutional Affairs Committee—namely, that what the Government anticipated amounted to an amendment of the Court of Session Act 1988, which is within the provenance of the Scottish Parliament? Has the Minister formed a view on Lord Hope's opinion and, if so, what role does he anticipate there being for the Scottish Parliament in the Bill's passage?
Mr. Leslie: We have not brought forward our own Bill at this stage, so we do not have details about any consequential arrangements, Sewel motions or other legislative requirements in the Scottish Parliament. I am sure that, in consultation with the Scottish Executive, we will be able to ensure that any requirements for legislation are pursued and brought forward. I know that the Scottish Parliament would want to scrutinise the matter to which the hon. Gentleman refers, on which I shall no doubt continue my dialogue with him.
Mr. Jim Cunningham: Will my hon. Friend be a little clearer about the housing of the supreme court? Can he tell us how many buildings are on any list that he may have and what he estimates to be the running costs, both in revenue and capital terms?
Mr. Leslie: I want to ensure that the House has an opportunity to look at our proposals, but I know that my hon. Friend will understand that, at this stage, not least given that we are moving forward with legislation shortly, it would be potentially prejudicial to our commercial position if we were to reveal all the different potential sites that we were considering, in case the costs then escalated or, conversely, location opportunities were closed off to us. I hope that he will understand that we do not wish to go into such detail at this stage, but I intend to ensure that we have the opportunity to disclose our preferred location to the House and explore those matters in more detail at the appropriate time.
Mr. Edward Garnier: Does the Minister accept my happiness about his acceptance that no criticism of the current Law Lords is implied by his statement? Will he further accept that the proposals are based on a complete misunderstanding of our constitutional history and the theory of the separation of powers? The Law Lords in no sense operate under the shadow of the legislature, but are a useful adjunct to it and gain much from their membership of it. Does he

1143
accept that the only result of what is proposed will be a huge and unnecessary additional expense that he has not condescended to detail to us? Would not the millions of pounds that he is bound to have to spend on this exercise be better spent on establishing a purpose-built commercial court that will attract millions of pounds in inward investments from overseas and/or on legal aid?
Mr. Leslie: I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware in a professional context of many of the requirements for improvement and modernisation throughout the legal system. We are looking at the commercial court arrangement, which is a matter for England and Wales in particular, but I do not believe that he is right to say that we have misunderstood the need for reform of our constitution. I believe that it is an important principle that we should have greater clarity between the different branches of our constitution and allow the judiciary and Parliament to focus on their core roles. That makes for a more effective Parliament and a more effective final court of appeal. The blurring that exists does not give any credence to the idea that we have the justice system for the 21st century that I believe this country deserves.
Mrs. Ann Cryer: Will my hon. Friend clarify one point? Did he say that, where Commonwealth countries currently use the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as a final court of appeal, they would be able in future to develop a home-grown variety of that final court of appeal? If that is the case, I shall have some anxieties, as a number of those countries retain the death penalty.
Mr. Leslie: I have to tell my hon. Friend that I do not believe that it is for us to dictate to Commonwealth countries the nature of their justice system. If they choose to retain the final right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, that is their right, but if they choose to move away from that arrangement, we should also respect that decision. I believe that that is the correct position to take, and I hope that she will understand that.
Mr. Eric Forth: Although I am broadly sympathetic to the Minister's argument for the concept of a separation of powers, may I ask him to reconsider the need for a written constitution at this stage, not only to protect us against the depredations of Governments with large majorities, but to clarify the relationship between our judicial system and his proposed supreme court, and, for example, the European Court of Justice? I should be
1144
grateful if he would say another word about how he believes that relationship will develop. Furthermore, given his proposal that there should be an age limit of 70 for supreme court justices, does he see any read-across to Members of Parliament in that regard, and if not, why not?
Mr. Leslie: One reform at a time, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] We have no proposals on that matter. The age limit of 70 reflects as closely as we can the current arrangements on the Appellate Committee, and our proposals make good sense. We do not propose to have a written constitution at this stage, but the package of reforms and changes that we are putting before the House is sufficiently ambitious and wide ranging to give the right hon. Gentleman plenty to consider. This Parliament is sovereign on all matters. We choose to delegate some of our legislative considerations to European bodies and elsewhere, but, again, we do not propose any change to the relationship between our highest court of appeal and the European Court of Justice.
Mr. Michael Weir: Despite the comment of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran), the House of Lords has not always had a beneficial effect on Scots law. I refer him to the case of Bartonshall Coal Company v. Reid and its effect on workmen's compensation—[Interruption.] Look it up; it would interest Labour Members. Given that the Minister said that the new supreme court would deal only with Scottish civil appeals and that such appeals will be binding only in Scotland, what is the sense in having these heard in London? Is not the logic of the proposal that Scots law should be repatriated to Scotland, where it belongs? If the Minister goes ahead with this crazy scheme, will he at least assure us that any Scots appeal will be dealt with only by justices who have a thorough knowledge of Scots law, so that we do not get a repetition of the Reid case?
Mr. Leslie: While Scotland remains a part of the UK, those civil appeals should continue to go to the UK supreme court. I do not believe that it would be right to change that.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Why not?
Mr. Leslie: Having that appeal to the UK supreme court can be of benefit to the whole of the UK—even in Scottish civil cases—because we all have opportunities to learn from the interpretations and applications made by those justices.

Point of Order
4.57 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We read in the Scottish press this morning that the Secretary of State for Scotland is about to announce the acceleration of an all-party commission to investigate the various electoral systems in Scotland. Given Mr. Speaker's many strictures on such matters, would it not be usual to have the consultation and then the announcement in Parliament, as opposed to having the announcement in the press and then the consultation?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): That is not a point of order for the Chair. We are about to begin the main business of the day.

Orders of the Day

  Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill
  [Relevant document: The First Report from the Scottish Affairs Committee, Session 2003–04, HC 77, on the Coincidence of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in Scotland and the Consequences of Change.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.58 pm
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alistair Darling): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill is short and to the point. It will keep the composition of the Scottish Parliament at 129 Members by removing the link in the Scotland Act 1998 that makes the constituencies of the Scottish Parliament the same as those for Westminster. The Bill will also provide for the separate review of the Scottish Parliament constituencies and regions by the Electoral Commission, which takes over the responsibilities of the boundary commission after the completion of the current review cycle. Without these provisions, there would be no mechanism for reviewing the boundaries for the Scottish Parliament constituencies.
  I also want to set out my proposals for dealing with the difficulties that many people believe will arise from having four different voting systems in Scotland, and other associated matters. I shall return to that in a moment. but first let me set out why this Bill is necessary.
  Mr. Eric Forth: I hope that at some point the Secretary of State will touch on the relationship between Members of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish MPs. If we are to have a large number of MSPs doing all the—no doubt excellent—work that they do at local and constituency level, will he have something to say about the reduction in the responsibilities of Scottish MPs—to say nothing of their allowances—in this House? With all these additional politicians in the Scottish Parliament, how can we justify the continued activity of Scottish MPs, apparently on the same basis as their English and Welsh counterparts?
  Mr. Darling: I shall have something to say about MPs and MSPs. The other matter that the right hon. Gentleman raises is for this House, not for the Government.
  The Government accepted from the outset that devolution removed the need for special consideration for Scotland in terms of representation in this House, and that there should be the same electoral quotas for Scotland as for England. That was an integral part of the devolution agreement. Section 86 of the Scotland Act 1998 provided for that reduction in MP numbers, but the Act also made the constituencies of the Scottish Parliament the same as those for Westminster, with the exception of Orkney and Shetland.
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: My right hon. Friend was in the House during the passage of the Scotland Act. Did he envisage—I certainly did not—that there would be an increase of some 250 per cent. in

  1147
  Scottish representation as a consequence of devolution? That is what one gets if one adds together 59 and 129 and compares it with what we had before.
  Mr. Darling: As my hon. Friend knows, when these matters were originally debated it was envisaged that the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament would reduce as and when the number of MPs being sent to Westminster reduced. As I was about to say, however, the Government said at the time that they would consider how the Scottish Parliament was working and keep the matter under review. Indeed, the Government were not the only people who said that. I note that although the Conservatives tabled an amendment—which, sadly, Mr. Speaker was unable to select—the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who still speaks for the Conservative party, at least on foreign affairs, said on 12 January 1998:
  "it cannot be good for Scotland to find that, within a year or two of the Scottish Parliament getting going, its numbers are cut to reflect the changes in the number of Scottish Members at Westminster. It makes little sense to set up a Parliament, ask it to bed down and then make fundamental changes to its size and composition."—Official Report, 12 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 43.]
  So it was not only members of the Government who took the view that these matters would have to be kept under review; it was the view of Conservative Members, too. That may explain why the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes does not have his name on the Conservative amendment.
  The answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) is that when the Scotland Bill was going through the House, it was anticipated that there would be a reduction in the number of MSPs to match the reduction in the number of MPs being sent to Westminster—but my noble Friend Lord Sewel made it clear that the Government would keep the matter under review. They did so, and subsequently consulted. The conclusion, which was announced by the former Secretary of State for Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Lidell), was that the Government would legislate to keep 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: Rather than relying on who said what to whom, surely the most convincing illustration of the situation is the question that if it was envisaged—or at least, if it was a strong probability—that the Parliament would keep 129 Members, would not the late Donald Dewar have accepted a design for a Parliament with 129 rooms for MSPs?
  Mr. Darling: I should have thought that most Members of this House would be more than happy to leave the accommodation arrangements at Holyrood to those at the Scottish Parliament charged with the responsibility of overseeing the project.
  Mr. Peter Duncan: The right hon. Gentleman referred to remarks by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes. He may recognise this comment, too:
  "we also believe that the Parliament could operate efficiently with fewer Members, and that there are good arguments for maintaining the linkage in constituencies."—[Official Report, 12 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 224.]
  1148
  Those are the words of the former First Minister, Henry McLeish.
  Mr. Darling: I recognise the words of the former First Minister. However, may I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil that when the Scotland Bill was considered, it was envisaged that the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament would reduce as the number of Members of Parliament went down. Indeed, the legislation provided for that. However, we said at the time that we would keep the matter under review. We have done that, and the consensus of opinion—I know that the feeling is not universal—is that the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament should remain at 129.
  Mr. Bill Tynan: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Darling: I should like to make some progress, or we shall never reach the exciting bit, but I shall give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Tynan: I thank my right hon. Friend. There seems to be some confusion about the number of offices in the Scottish Parliament. I understand that Reid's Close has 105 MSP offices, and that Queensberry House, for the Presiding Officer and two deputies, makes the total 108. Is that not the case?
  Mr. Darling: I have no idea about the accommodation arrangements at Holyrood. Although it is currently in my constituency—the boundary commission has made sure that that will not remain the case for much longer—I have not yet had the pleasure of a guided tour of the building. Perhaps I shall one day.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Darling: I must make some progress. If the hon. Gentleman wants to ask about the accommodation arrangements in Holyrood, he would do better to direct his inquiries to the Scottish Parliament.
  As hon. Members know, the boundary commission recently finished reviewing Scottish Westminster constituencies and it recommends reducing the number to 59. The next stage would be for the commission to consider the boundaries of the regions that return additional Members to the Scottish Parliament. That work must be either concluded or made unnecessary by the Bill before the commission can report to me. The commission is considering the best way to proceed in the light of the Bill's progress.
  The commission is required by statute to report by December 2006. When it does so is a matter solely for the commission itself, but in the light of its progress so far, the review is likely to be finished long before the deadline
  Pete Wishart: I wrote to the Secretary of State about that matter a couple of weeks

  1149
  ago. Does he envisage any circumstances in which we might not contest the next general election under new boundaries?
  Mr. Darling: I am sorry, but I did not pick up the hon. Gentleman's question.
  Pete Wishart: It is an important question for the Secretary of State. Can he imagine any possibility of not fighting the next general election with the new constituencies? Will we definitely fight the next election under new boundaries?
  Mr. Darling: If there were a general election tomorrow morning, we would probably fight it on the existing boundaries. However, as I have said on many occasions, the boundary commission has finished all its work on the Westminster constituencies. It would logically consider the consequential effect on the regions that provide the additional MSPs. The commission is well aware of the Bill and it is currently deciding how best to proceed. The Prime Minister and I have often said that as soon as we get the report—the timing is a matter for the boundary commission—we shall implement it. I cannot make that any clearer.
  John Robertson: Will my right hon. Friend clarify the position—[Laughter.] Will he clarify it so that I can understand it? Will the commission start its deliberations on the Scottish Parliament boundaries immediately? Will that mean that its recommendations will be implemented by 2007?
  Mr. Darling: Perhaps I have misunderstood my hon. Friend, but I believe that he is confusing two separate matters. As all hon. Members know, the boundary commission, which considers the boundaries for Westminster constituencies, has finished its work on that. Under current legislation, which the Bill would change, the boundary commission would consider the boundaries that govern the return of the additional MSPs. The Bill specifically stops that work because first, we want to maintain the 129 MSPs, and secondly, as I am about to say if I get that far—I propose that we should consider the consequences of having four different systems in Scotland. The commission that I propose to establish to examine that, is different from the boundary commission.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Darling: No. That is hard on the hon. Gentleman, and I promise that I shall let him in before I finish, but not yet.
  As I said, following the consultation, the former Secretary of State for Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts, told the House on 18 December 2002 that the Government intended to bring forward legislation to retain the existing number of MSPs, and that legislation is now before the House. We are aware of concerns about the future operation of different boundaries for Westminster and Holyrood constituencies. They have been raised on many
  1150
  occasions in this House and elsewhere. We therefore welcome the report published on 3 February by the Scottish Affairs Committee on the possible impact of non-coterminous boundaries on voters, party organisations, electoral administrators and others.
  Hon. Members will recall that my right hon. Friend announced in December 2002 her intention regarding a commission to look at issues arising from the idea of different Holyrood and Westminster boundaries. At that time, she proposed an independent commission to be set up after the Scottish Parliament elections in 2007 to consider the impact of having non-coterminous boundaries for Holyrood and Westminster constituencies. It was also indicated that the commission would not be precluded from looking at questions of electoral systems, including proportional representation.
  I have come to the view that we need to consider such questions not in 2007 but this year. I shall inform the House how I intend to take this matter forward, taking account of some significant changes that have occurred following the Scottish Parliament election last May. As the House will know, the Scottish Parliament is currently considering legislation that, if enacted, would lead to councils in Scotland being elected by the single transferable vote from 2007. Therefore, Scotland now faces the prospect of four different voting systems for an electorate of just over 3.8 million: for UK general elections, the first-past-the-post system; for European elections, a PR list system; for Holyrood, the additional member system; and, if the legislation goes through, STV for local government. In addition, the further complication exists that local government elections in Scotland are expected to take place on the same day as the Holyrood election.
  Mrs. Helen Liddell: I very much welcome the fact that the Secretary of State is bringing forward the independent commission. He makes an important point about the multiplicity of electoral systems that might exist in Scotland. We should all have learned from the May election the lesson that it is important to engage the electorate. Would my right hon. Friend therefore be prepared to raise with the First Minister the possibility that the new independent commission might also consider the electoral system for local government? If we have 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament and 59 Members of the Westminster Parliament, the boundaries should be coterminous. We need to look at how the electoral system operates to make sure that we have a coherent whole.
  Mr. Darling: First, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her welcome for the announcement that I am in the process of making. Secondly, I shall explain when I set out the terms of reference and the areas to be covered by the commission how local government would be included. In my view, however, the commission needs to be able to look at all the matters that are giving rise to the difficulties that I have set out. Of course, it is for the Scottish Parliament to legislate for local government, just as it is for this Parliament to legislate in relation to the elections to the Scottish Parliament.

  1151
  As many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, the potential for significant confusion among voters is high as a result of us having four different systems. As the low turnout of voters at the May elections last year suggests, we ought to try to do all that we can to make voting more straightforward and understandable for the electorate, not more complicated. Indeed, since the Scottish Parliament elections last year, debate has been growing in Scotland on the subject of the electoral arrangements for the Scottish Parliament.
  I have also considered the concerns raised about the divergence of boundaries for Westminster and Scottish Parliament constituencies, which will arise from the passage of the Bill before the House and the reduction in the number of Scottish MPs. There may also be scope for further confusion among the public as to their representation in such a circumstance—which, of course, was the conclusion of the Scottish Affairs Committee. That Committee further commented on the difficulties in relations between elected Members, the electorate and other bodies, such as local authorities, because of the sometimes overlapping responsibilities of constituency and list Members of the Scottish Parliament.
  I think that, so that we can deal with all those aspects of possible confusion in our systems of election and representation, the establishment of the commission should be brought forward, and it should start work as soon as possible. It will examine the consequences of having four different voting systems in Scotland, and different boundaries between Westminster and Holyrood. It will consider the implications for voter participation, the relationship between public bodies and authorities in Scotland and MPs and MSPs, and the representation of constituents by different tiers of elected members. It will be asked to make representations on whether the consequences require action to be taken in respect of arrangements between elected representatives, to ensure that constituents and organisations receive the best possible service; the pattern of electoral boundaries in Scotland; the relationship with other public bodies and authorities in Scotland; and the method of voting in Scottish parliamentary elections.
  The commission will be independent. It will consider the case for change, and make recommendations to me and to the First Minister. I intend to discuss the chairmanship and membership of the commission with the other political parties in the House, and I will announce its membership in due course.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Darling: I will give way to everyone with pleasure, but I give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy).
  Mr. Frank Roy: I welcome the establishment of an independent commission, but will it come up with recommendations or with what I am sure many Members would favour—various options?
  Mr. Darling: I expect it to make recommendations, but it might recommend the adoption of one of two
  1152
  possible courses. I do not want to fetter its discretion before it even gets going. It may produce a firm recommendation, having reached a conclusive view, or it may say "You could do such and such, or something else." I do not want to say at the very beginning that it must come up with a definite conclusion.
  There is an important point here. As I have said before, if we are to change the way in which the Scottish Parliament is elected, a degree of consensus is needed. Unanimity will never be possible, but this is not something that a single political party can do.
  The commission may produce a recommendation, or a series of recommendations, but it should be remembered that it is for us in this Parliament to decide which—if any—to accept, just as it is for the Scottish Parliament to make decisions relating to local government.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Darling: I will give way to everyone in due course, but I want to be as fair as possible. I give way to the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats.
  Malcolm Bruce: I welcome what the Secretary of State has said about consensus, and I recognise the value of the commission, but will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge, without binding it in any way, that the settlement that created the Scottish Parliament was endorsed in a referendum on the basis of the principle that the Parliament would be elected under a system of proportional representation? That was a done deal with the Scottish people. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the recommendations of the Scottish Affairs Committee, for instance, are totally inconsistent with that principle endorsed by the Scottish electorate?
  Mr. Darling: It is open to the commission to consider the Select Committee's recommendations—along with, I dare say, many other representations. As for the hon. Gentleman's general point, it is true that the broad devolution settlement was agreed after a referendum. As I have always said, and as I said a moment ago, there must be a degree of consensus throughout Scotland. This is not just the province of political parties in Scotland; it is a matter for the public—the electorate—in Scotland. I repeat that I do not want to fetter the commission's discretion before it even gets going. It would be best for it to reach its own conclusions.
  Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: Can the Secretary of State give us some idea of the time scale he envisages? As it is nearly two years since we began to discuss the whole question of the 129 seats, would it not be sensible to complete the process sooner rather than later?
  Mr. Darling: I agree. My view is that if we are to look at these issues, it should be done quickly. We should come to a conclusion as quickly as possible, consistent of course with having a proper examination of the views—
  Mr. Andrew Turner: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Darling: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in due course.

  1153
  Although devolution is of importance in Scotland and electoral systems are of great importance to some and, I suppose, of general importance to us all, I come from the school of thought that believes that no purpose is being served by keeping the process going year after year after year. I thus have a lot of sympathy with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe). An inquiry should be set up, with time to consider the options open to it; it should report and then we should decide what to do.
  David Hamilton rose—
  Mr. Darling: In the interests of balance, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) and then to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Turner: The Secretary of State has referred twice to consensus, but on the second occasion he qualified his remarks by saying that it had to be consensus across Scotland. However, we are discussing United Kingdom legislation and it is certainly the consensus in my constituency that one Member of Parliament can serve 100,000 people. Why have my constituents not been asked for their view on this consensus, and why is it necessary for Scots to be served at the rate of one Member of Parliament per 20,000 people?
  Mr. Darling: With respect, the hon. Gentleman's question seems to flow from a misunderstanding of the constitutional arrangements in this country. We determine what the consensus is through Parliament—through the House of Commons. We all have a vote on these matters. When proposals eventually come before the House, we all have to decide whether to vote. On the general point about the size of the hon. Gentleman's constituency, I have already said that, as a result of the Scotland Act 1998, the same electoral quota as currently applies in England is now being applied in Scotland through the work of the Scottish Parliament. That point is already being dealt with.
  David Hamilton: When the last review took place I was a member of the public and voted on the establishment of a Scottish Parliament, not on the detail of how the election would be held. May I bring my right hon. Friend back to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe)? When the recommendations are made, which will, I hope, be sooner rather than later—they should be made quickly—we should talk not about recommendations but about the alternatives available to us. It is for us to make the decisions, not the professionals who make recommendations to us. That is extremely important; there should be alternatives, not recommendations.
  Mr. Darling: It will always be a matter for the House of Commons to decide which recommendations, or parts of recommendations, it wants to pursue. That is well understood. The point that I was making to my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South is that it would be wrong for me to say at the very start of the process, "Here's an independent commission, but by
  1154
  the way this is what I want you to conclude", or to say that the commission should offer only us alternatives. A commission might set out a range of options—either because it could not come to a unanimous view or because it felt that some things should be considered further by the House or the Scottish Parliament. I do not know what the commission will decide, but I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (David Hamilton) and other Members that I think it is the best way for us to look at the present electoral arrangements in Scotland, as well as those planned for 2007, so that we can then consider the best option in the future.
  Mr. Salmond: In the interests of consensus, I welcome the consultation process. However, a few seconds ago, the Secretary of State said that the commission would report to him and the First Minister. Is not there a strong argument that such a commission should be established by the Scottish Parliament and, given the fact that the current electoral system, which so many Labour MPs find so distasteful, was actually voted for in the House, would not it be far better to let the Scottish Parliament have a go to see whether it can find a better electoral system, as its politicians are the ones most immediately concerned?
  Mr. Darling: No, I disagree. The way in which Members of the Scottish Parliament are elected is reserved to Westminster; it is an integral part of the devolution settlement. The hon. Gentleman is a nationalist—he is a separatist, so of course he does not agree with that. However, the Labour party is not separatist—we are a party of the Union. We believe in the devolution settlement, and that is not up for grabs.
  Mr. Roy: I understand the Secretary of State's argument, but my point is that he does not know that the commission will not come back with just one recommendation. I would like my right hon. Friend to ask the commission expressly to come back with various alternatives. As I said, there is nothing to stop the commission providing just a single recommendation. Frankly, that is not enough.
  Mr. Darling: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but if we are to set up an independent commission, it is important that we do not end up with a position where, right from the start, we steer it in a direction in which it might not want to go. For all I know, the commission might provide a range of options—
  Mr. Roy: Or one.
  Mr. Darling: It might come up, as my hon. Friend says, with one option, but we must remember that the Government of the day, the House and Parliament as a whole have a perfect right to accept all, none or only parts of the recommendations.
  In setting out this course of action, I have consulted the First Minister, who shares my concerns and welcomes taking the debate forward. I want to make it clear that I have an open mind on these matters and that we should not pre-judge the conclusions, although, as I said earlier, the outcome must respect the basic principles of the devolution settlement.

  1155
  I reiterate that the interests of the electorate and the ease and effectiveness with which they exercise their democratic rights are paramount in all those matters. I have also made it clear that any future decision to change the present electoral arrangements should try to reflect a consensus within Scotland. The commission will therefore be expected to carry out its remit through wide-ranging consultation designed to achieve general support for any change. There will never be unanimity, but the system of election to the Scottish Parliament does need broad agreement. It is our responsibility to provide the basis for a debate on electoral arrangements for that Parliament because the matter is reserved to Westminster.
  Mr. Brian Wilson: I am listening carefully to right hon. Friend, but will he confirm my interpretation that he is proposing to set up a commission in order to sort out a confusion that we are still in the process of creating today?
  Mr. Darling: No, I would not agree with my hon. Friend. We are trying to resolve the difficulties arising from the fact that, by 2007—assuming that the legislation to set up local government elections is passed—we will have four different systems for electing various people in Scotland, which has an electorate of 3.8 million. That needs to be resolved and that is why I am setting up a commission. It would have been possible for the Government to propose a particular solution, but I believe that we need a consensus—inasmuch as it is possible to secure one—to ensure that the system is generally acceptable in Scotland.
  Mr. O'Neill: Can my right hon. Friend tell us more about the sequence? The Bill is going through Parliament and will deal with the number of seats. Is the commission not in any way related to the functions or purposes of the Bill, or will it feed into some part of the parliamentary procedures? Will it result in legislation that is wholly separate from the legislation before us today? Frankly, I do not understand the timetable of what my right hon. Friend is talking about. Would it not be more sensible to withdraw the legislation and let the commission deal with the problem, so that we could then come back and deal with its recommendations?
  Mr. Darling: I shall have to disappoint my hon. Friend on that. We said two years ago that we intended to introduce legislation to retain 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament. We promised to do that and the Bill to achieve it is now before the House. It is being dealt with separately from the issues considered by the commission.
  I set up the commission because I am well aware that both within and outside political parties in Scotland there is concern about the number of different voting systems and the problems thrown up by the lack of coterminosity between Westminster and Holyrood. That is why a commission is being established, but its timetable is different from the timetable for the Bill. The intention is that the Bill, providing it gains the support of the House and the other place, will be on the statute book by the summer. We promised that we would do
  1156
  that, and going back on that promise would be to invite allegations of bad faith. The commission, as I explained, is operating on a different time scale.
  Mr. Mohammad Sarwar: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the four different voting systems in Scotland for councils and Scottish, Westminster and European Parliaments will cause confusion among the electorate and encourage voter apathy in all elections? I understand that the commission may consider whether it is impossible for the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments to have the same system, but we should at least have the same system for local government in Scotland and for the Scottish Parliament.
  Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right to suggest that the commission will consider the arrangements for elections in Scotland—those for the Scottish Parliament and those in relation to local government—and I agree that there is some confusion. All of us who voted last May will recall seeing people who were confused about how the list system worked. Indeed, at the polling station that I was in, an old lady asked for advice from the polling clerk, who looked at me and said, "Not while he's here." [Laughter.]
  We also need to consider the clarity of outcome. It is curious that everyone who stood in some elections got elected one way or another under the present system, and some voters find that difficult to understand—although many hon. Members might quite like such a system if we got elected regardless of what we did. My hon. Friend is right. Indeed, the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, of which he is a member, considered those matters and believed that such confusion needed to be looked at.
  Mr. Forth: Following the point made by the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) and others, will the Secretary of State in the end use his huge majority of English MPs to stampede legislation through the House that affects Scotland?
  Mr. Darling: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman anticipates that we will have a huge majority for some time to come.
  Mr. Russell Brown: I return to the Select Committee's excellent report, which states:
  "The Committee expects the Electoral Commission to produce its detailed proposals in time for the election to the Scottish Parliament in 2007 to be conducted under the new arrangements. It is, therefore, imperative that the Commission starts its work without delay"—
  as my right hon. Friend is saying—
  "and that it presents its findings to the Secretary of State for Scotland who should take the final decision based on all available information."
  Does my right hon. Friend think it is possible for the new arrangements to be implemented at the next Scottish Parliament election in 2007?
  Mr. Darling: As I said in relation to an earlier question, I want the commission to be set up as quickly as possible and then to report as soon as it can, subject to having adequate time to consider such things.

  1157
  Thereafter, assuming that it recommends some form of change, primary legislation will be necessary. For obvious reasons, I cannot say when the Government might introduce such legislation, especially as we have not even got any recommendation to do so, but many people will take the view that, having set up the commission, it is best to ask it to get on with its work as quickly as it reasonably can because keeping such matters going for year after year would be unnecessary and not widely acceptable.
  Mr. Michael Weir: Much has been made of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs report. I am a member of that Committee. Does the Secretary of State not accept that the defect in the report is that, after calling for a commission, it makes a specific recommendation for a system that many Labour Back Benchers are pushing for? Does he accept that that is wrong and that the commission should be completely independent?
  Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is relatively new to the House, but I can assure him that it is not unknown for Select Committees to make recommendations.
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: I am trying my best to be sympathetic to the difficulties in which the Secretary of State finds himself, but is it not the truth that he is experiencing difficulties because we agreed—he says two years ago, but it may be more—to change the legislation without understanding the consequences of the change? We are now being asked to change the legislation and to rely on a commission of the great and the good to make decisions for us or to make recommendations. That does not point to good governance at all.
  Mr. Darling: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. Anyone who considered the matter two years ago when the former Secretary of State made the announcement would have understood full well the import of what was being considered.
  There is a simple point to make about the commission. Although, in theory, it would be open to the Government of the day to say, "Right, this is the voting system. Take it or leave it", I do not think that it would be possible to make a change on something as fundamental as the way in which we elect representatives without there being a degree of consensus. My hon. Friend and I might disagree on that point, but it is important.
  I am not suggesting that a commission is the only way to proceed, but I propose to establish a commission and I have said that I shall talk to party representatives in the House to get it set up as quickly as possible. However, as I have said many times before, there needs to be a debate in Scotland the best way of electing MSPs about and so on. That is the best way to proceed.
  1158
  At this stage, I shall briefly go through what is in the Bill.
  Mr. Forth: Ah.
  Mr. Darling: By convention, Secretaries of State do that, but I sense that the mood of the House is for me to do it quite quickly.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: I think that I have understood everything that my right hon. Friend has said to the House, but one issue is not clear in my mind because it is one for the Scottish Executive. On the proposals for electing councillors to local government, do the Scottish Executive take a firm view or are they prepared to submit proposals on that to the same commission or to arbitration in the way that my right hon. Friend will in respect of matters that are relevant to him?
  Mr. Darling: As I said a while ago, the decision about the system for electing councillors in Scotland is entirely a matter for the Scottish Executive. We have no control at all over that. It will be for the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament to decide what course of action they wish to follow. My right hon. Friend will be aware of the agreement between the governing parties in the Scottish Executive in relation to this and it is no part of my statement today to interfere in the working of it. The commission will be set up after discussions with the First Minister and it will consider not just how we elect MSPs, but the implications of the changes proposed for councils. Whether that has implications for what the Scottish Executive are doing is a matter for them and not for me. It would probably be against the spirit of the whole devolution settlement if I were to go any further than that.
  As I have said, the Bill is short and to the point so I can deal with what it does fairly quickly. [Interruption.] Most of my speech has not been about the Bill. Clause 1 will replace the first schedule to the Scotland Act 1998, which makes provision for constituencies. It will keep the size of the Parliament at 129 Members.
  Clause 2 will give effect to the provisions in schedule 3 on the review of Westminster constituencies and the Scottish Parliament regions that is being carried out for the boundary commission for Scotland. Schedule 1 will provide a mechanism for reviewing these boundaries whatever they may be once the Bill is on the statute book.
  Schedule 2 will make transitional provisions to deal with the position before the Electoral Commission takes over, and schedule 3 is important because it ensures that the boundary commission's recommendations in relation to the Scottish regions will no longer be relevant.
  The scope of the Bill is narrow and deliberately so, because its sole aim is to give effect to the Government's promise to retain the current size and structure of the Scottish Parliament. I believe that the commission that I have announced today will deal with a number of concerns that have been raised not just in the House but throughout Scotland, and it will make recommendations on how we elect Members to the

  1159
  Scottish Parliament in future. However, as I have said, the purpose of this Bill is to make provision for retaining 129 MSPs. I commend it to the House.
  5.39 pm
  Mr. Alan Duncan: The Secretary of State made it clear—perhaps I should say that he eventually made it clear—that the principal purpose of this short, four-clause Bill is to amend the Scotland Act 1998 to remove the link between constituencies for the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood and constituencies here at Westminster.
  The current position is straightforward and widely understood. Schedule 1 to the 1998 Act contains provisions to reduce MSPs at Holyrood in proportion to any reduction in Scottish seats at Westminster. Under the current legislation, once Westminster constituencies are cut from 72 to 59, MSPs at Holyrood would automatically reduce from 129 to 108.
  Clause 1 fundamentally changes that. It amends schedule 1 to the 1998 Act so that the existing constituencies for the Scottish Parliament remain the same, irrespective of any changes made to parliamentary constituencies for this House. That is set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 of schedule 1, which preserves 73 MSPs within the existing constituencies and 56 list MSPs in eight regions, with seven members per region.
  In addition, the Bill provides that the Electoral Commission will review constituencies and regions for the Scottish Parliament separately from any review of Westminster constituencies. It represents a U-turn by the Labour Government on their previous commitments—put simply, it is undeniable that they have buckled under pressure from their own MSPs. That is why in December 2001 the then Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell) launched her consultation on whether Westminster and Holyrood constituencies should continue to be linked. That is why, to little surprise on the Conservative Benches, on 18 December 2002 she announced to the House that she had been persuaded that the Scottish Parliament should remain as it is now at 129 MSPs.
  Sir Robert Smith: The hon. Gentleman mentions U-turns, but the Bill seeks to undo the U-turn in the 1998 Act from the commitment made by the Labour party in the convention on Scotland that the size of the Scottish Parliament would be appropriate to its functions and not coupled to the reduction in MPs at Westminster. The Bill also helps in that it speeds up the delivery of the reduction in MPs at Westminster by allowing the boundary commission to report on that half of the Government's proposals once it is enacted.
  Mr. Duncan: There is considerable doubt about whether the number of MSPs is appropriate to the Scottish Parliament's functions.
  To pacify Labour and Liberal MSPs in Edinburgh, the Labour Government say that the 1998 Act must be amended. Having set out the constitutional settlement in detail, they have taken only six years to start tinkering with it. Let me be clear: Conservative Members believe that the Bill is wrong. The Government should uphold
  1160
  the terms of the 1998 Act and, as they originally intended, proportionately reduce MSPs and MPs. In our view—this is the answer to the intervention by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith)—Scotland is already over-governed. It needs fewer politicians, not more. And there is no doubt that the Scottish Parliament could function as well, if not better, with a membership of 108.
  Mr. Donohoe: The hon. Gentleman's argument does not take into account the proportionality within the Scottish Parliament and would reduce the numbers in the list system.
  Mr. Duncan: That is one way of doing it. The argument is whether the constituency boundaries should be coterminous. I am aware of the logical point that the hon. Gentleman is about to make, which I shall address in a moment.
  Mr. Salmond: I am struck by what the hon. Gentleman just said. The vast majority of MSPs, across a range of political parties—not the Conservatives, but everyone else—agree that 129 Members are necessary for the proper functioning of the Parliament. What exact specialty or knowledge does the hon. Gentleman have to gainsay that argument, given that it is the decided majority view of the majority of MSPs?
  Mr. Duncan: It is the knowledge that I can spot a self-serving consensus when I see it.
  Let me quote another authoritative source on this issue, who said:
  "We understand the arguments in favour of maintaining the Parliament's size, but we also believe that the Parliament could operate effectively with fewer Members, and that there are good arguments for maintaining the linkage in constituencies."—[Official Report, 12 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 224.]
  Those are not my words, nor those of any Conservative: they are the considered judgment of none other than the former First Minister for Scotland, Henry McLeish, during the passage of the Scotland Act 1998.
  Conservatives support smaller government and a smaller Parliament, while being firmly committed to making devolution work. As the Scottish Conservative manifesto for the Scottish parliamentary elections in May said:
  "The Scottish Parliament should not be immune from this drive for leaner, fitter government. We will cut the number of MSPs, in line with the reduction in Scottish MPs at Westminster, by implementing the provisions of the Scotland Act."
  But it is not just on those grounds that we oppose the Bill. Nor do we oppose it just on grounds that it is yet another reversal of policy by the Government. It is for many other reasons besides.
  As a consequence of the Bill, if passed, future elections to Holyrood and Westminster would be fought on different constituency boundaries. It has been said that that
  "will cause chaos and confusion".—[Official Report, 18 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 864.]
  Again, those are not my words, but those of the right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] He is

  1161
  absent from his place today. There may be good reasons for that, as there often are when someone who attends as diligently as he does is not here. In the same debate, the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) called the proposals "an absolute shambles".
  The Bill runs counter to the arguments put by the Government in 1998 when the Scotland Bill was going through this House. As the then Scottish Office Minister and later First Minister, Henry McLeish, said, in rejecting a Liberal Democrat amendment to the Bill:
  "We believe that the integrity of the Union will be strengthened by having common constituencies for the Scottish and United Kingdom Parliaments".—[Official Report, 28 January 1998; Vol. 305, c. 456.]
  We can infer only that the purpose of the Government in introducing a Bill that breaks the link is to weaken the integrity of the Union.
  Pete Wishart: In the hon. Gentleman's many travels to Scotland, has he ever come across any members of the Scottish public who have expressed their concerns about coterminosity?
  Mr. Duncan: I know that there are some great intellectuals in Scotland, because I visit it regularly, as the origins of my name suggest.
  Mr. McLeish also said:
  "Having constituencies that cover the same geographical area will help to encourage liaison between MPs and MSPs in ensuring that the interests of their common electorate are served properly in whichever Parliament is responsible for an issue. Good working relationships between Members of the Scottish Parliament and Westminster will be essential if devolution is to be a success."—[Official Report, 12 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 224.]
  Last Tuesday, the Scottish Affairs Committee published its report, "Coincidence of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in Scotland and the Consequences of Change". Like all Select Committees, the Scottish Affairs Committee has a Labour majority, but even that did not prevent it from highlighting the tremendous tensions that would be created for the electorate by having different constituencies for Holyrood and Westminster. As the Committee concluded, in paragraph 11:
  "The Committee considers the convenience of the electorate to be paramount. Based on the evidence we have received, we recommend that, in order to avoid possible confusion, the constituency boundaries in Scotland for elections to the United Kingdom and to the Scottish Parliament should remain coterminous".
  The reality is that different boundaries for elections to Holyrood and Westminster will create a complete mess. As my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) has pointed out, keeping 129 MSPs will simply add to the instability created by such issues as the West Lothian question. We believe that there should be coterminous boundaries, as did the Government in the 1998 Act. We also believe that Holyrood constituencies should be reduced in line with Westminster constituencies. The simple way to achieve that is by upholding the terms of the original legislation.
  There is of course another aspect to this debate, which is the question of Scottish representation in this House.
  Mr. Weir: If the hon. Gentleman wants simply to reduce the number of seats in the Scottish Parliament, in line with the reduction in seats in this place, from 72 to 59, will he explain whether he proposes to have 59 directly elected MSPs and retain the 56 list MSPs?
  Mr. Duncan: I suppose that that is what would happen under the 1998 Act. However, let us consider representation in this House.
  Mr. Donohoe rose—
  Mr. Duncan: Let me just move on. The Government have given several commitments that the reduction in the number of Scottish seats at Westminster from 72 to 59 will take place in time for the next UK general election. The Scotsman reported in July 2003 that the Secretary of State
  "told a private meeting of the Scottish group of Labour MPs there were no plans to postpone the boundary changes which will see the number of Scottish constituencies cut from 72 to 59."
  That followed a commitment given by the Prime Minister—who is struggling to ensure that everything that he says is fully trusted—in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), who voiced the suspicion shared by many that the Government plan to renege on their commitment to reduce the number of Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster. The Prime Minister replied that
  "we made that commitment clear and we will of course carry it through."—[Official Report, 16 July 2003; Vol. 409, c. 278.]
  Well, will he do that? Perhaps the Secretary of State can repeat that assurance today.
  The Prime Minister made that comment the day before the Leader of the House said that the only commitment was to publish the report by 2006. The Secretary of State said in September that he expected to lay the order implementing the cut "early next year". Where is the order? Will he unequivocally commit to implementing this change according to that timetable, and before the next Westminster election if possible?
  Mr. Darling: It is becoming pretty clear that the hon. Gentleman has scant knowledge of Scottish affairs in general. I think that he was in the Chamber when I made my speech, although he was chattering all the time. I said that the boundary commission had completed its work on the Westminster constituencies but not yet submitted its report to me as Secretary of State. As I have made clear on many occasions, and as the Prime Minister has also said, when it submits its report, that report will be implemented; but when it comes to me it is entirely in the hands of the independent boundary commission.
  Mr. Duncan: If that is known to be the case, it seems very strange that such clear commitments were given in the first place. The Government should know better.
  The Bill will reinforce the balances already created by the problem raised by the West Lothian question, and lead to a cut in the number of Scottish MPs here while maintaining the current number in Scotland. We

  1163
  consider that the Bill is bad for Scotland and bad for the United Kingdom. It reverses the commitments given by the Government in 1998, breaks yet another link between Westminster and Edinburgh and will lead to chaos and confusion across Scotland. I therefore urge the House to vote no today, and to resile from supporting this illogical and unprincipled Bill.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. May I remind all right hon. and hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 15-minute time limit on all Back-Bench speeches?
  5.53 pm
  Mrs. Irene Adams: This issue seems to excite hon. Members greatly. As has been pointed out, it is not first on the list of complaints at constituency surgeries, but it seems to have exercised us all for the past two years, since it was suggested that 129 Members should remain at Edinburgh.
  We must ask ourselves how we arrived at this point in the first place. We did not come up with the figure of 129 overnight. The subject was debated in Scotland for at least 20 years, and that culminated in our setting up the Scottish Constitutional Convention, in which the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats, the unions and the churches all took part. Unfortunately, the Scottish National party did not, which is understandable given that it supports independence for Scotland, not devolution. The Conservatives, too, refused to take part, but that was not surprising at the time because 10 Scotland Members on the Conservative Front Bench—the Conservative party was then in government—decided everything that happened in Scotland, while 62 Scotland Members sat on the Opposition Benches.
  That is how we reached the current position. The convention came up with 129, but it was not the original number; I think that that was 140 or 144. We made the decision to have 129 Members on an additional list system—so that there would be some proportionality—only after much discussion with the unions, the Liberal Democrats and the churches.
  Mr. Peter Duncan: Does the hon. Lady accept that the consensus reached was on the balance between proportionally elected top-up Members and constituency Members? Therefore, if the number of constituency Members of the Scottish Parliament were reduced, it would be logical to maintain that proportion and reduce the number of list Members.
  Mrs. Adams: Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman's party had taken part in those discussions, he could have said something on that at the time, but it refused to do so.
  Another subject that raised its head in the search for consensus was gender balance. Some of us thought that the convention had also found agreement on that, but only the Labour party addressed that issue, and it still seems to be the only party that does so. I hope that other hon. Members will tell us why their parties never got to that point.
  1164
  The 129 Members were to be made up by the direct election to Edinburgh of one Member per Westminster constituency, with a top-up—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May we have just one debate in the Chamber, please?
  Mrs. Adams: There was then a top-up Member from a list system. Anyone who thinks that that system is working now is living in cloud cuckoo land. One directly elected Member operates surgeries in a given Westminster constituency, followed by, in my constituency, any one of eight list Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) pointed out to the Select Committee that in Glasgow some 77,000 votes were cast for the Labour party in the second ballot, but that not one person was elected with them. I do not know where the fairness in that system lies, given that a member of a minority party could be elected with 10,000 votes. The system clearly is not working.
  John Robertson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the more than 77,000 members of the electorate who went to the bother of filling in their ballot papers would have done as well to throw them in a bucket as to take part in the election?
  Mrs. Adams: Many people at the polling stations found it hard to understand how the system worked. The most common question that they asked was what the second vote was for, and what its outcome would be, and they were being told by minority parties, "Don't vote for the majority party or the main opposition party because your vote won't count." There is something wrong with a system in which democrats stand at a polling station and say that to people coming through the doors.
  Mr. Salmond: I very much agree with the point that the hon. Lady is developing, in that, in my experience, the vast majority of people regard the second vote as a second preference. However, does she concede that there are other list systems and other forms of proportionality that do not depend on having two votes and two ballot papers?
  Mrs. Adams: Absolutely. I concede that that is the case. My point is that this system is probably the worst that we could have chosen at the time—[Interruption.] I give way to the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. Peter Duncan: I am sorry; I was not seeking to intervene, but I shall take the opportunity to do so. The hon. Lady must accept that that was her system, decided on under the consensus that came out of the convention. She is seeking to deny the consensus on the one hand and uphold it on the other.
  Mrs. Adams: Indeed I am not denying the consensus. This often happens when there is consensus: everyone gets what no one wants. That is part of the problem with consensus, but it is democratic. It does not always lead to the perfect system, but it gives everyone a little of what they want, although it does not give them all that they want.

  1165
  Taking evidence in the Select Committee, we did not find anyone who supported the existing system. Everyone thought that it was not the best way of doing things and that we should look for other ways. The Committee agreed that 129 MSPs should remain at Edinburgh, primarily because most of the Scottish Parliament's committee structures are built around that figure. I am quite happy to accept that. That committee system seems to be working well, even though it has not had a lot of time to bed in, and that is a good enough reason to leave that number as it is.
  The problem that then arises is that we do not have coterminous boundaries. That is not a problem for political parties. It might be a pain in the neck for them, but we can all find ways of managing the situation. I would suggest, however, that it is a great problem for the electors.
  Mr. Sarwar: I understand that the present system for electing MSPs is not perfect, but what is my hon. Friend's preferred option? Would she go for a first-past-the-post system. such as that supported by the Conservatives, and which gave them zero per cent. representation in the 1997 elections? Or would she support the single transferable vote system for local government and the Scottish Parliament?
  Mrs. Adams: There are many ways of doing this, and the Secretary of State is right to put this matter to a commission. The Select Committee said that we should ask a commission to give various options. We also said that there should be two Members in Edinburgh per Westminster constituency, but I do not think that that necessarily has to be done by a first-past-the-post system.
  Mr. Roy: My hon. Friend has raised an interesting point. She said that the Select Committee hoped that the commission would come back with various options. However, if it comes back with only one recommendation to which the House has to say yes or no, does she see a danger of our having to go back to the very beginning? If we are presented with a number of alternatives, it will broaden the debate and there will be a far better chance of reaching consensus.
  Mrs. Adams: I hope that a commission will take account of what is being said here today when it considers these issues. My main concern about its bringing forward only one recommendation is that it would become a fait accompli, and there would be grave dangers in that. We should be presented with options for achieving two Members per Westminster constituency. It could be achieved through a first-past-the-post system, through an alternative vote system, or by linking two or three Members within each Westminster constituency to give a single transferable vote system. There are many and varied ways of achieving that goal.
  David Hamilton: May I put one alternative to my hon. Friend? MSPs also share a frustration in relation to list Members. They have to do all the work, yet at the end of the day these other people parachute in to take the work away from them. The alternative vote system is worthy
  1166
  of consideration because a majority of the electorate in a constituency has to vote for certain candidates. The commission should consider such a system.
  Mrs. Adams: That is why it is important that the commission lays down all the options and tells us what they will achieve. That would give Parliament a real decision to make, and I believe that Governments should make those decisions. That is what Governments are elected to do. They should carry the can if the decision goes wrong, but they are here to do that job.
  Mrs. Liddell: I am following the gist of my hon. Friend's argument. My only anxiety relates to the fankle that we got ourselves into over the reform of the House of Lords, when a raft of different alternatives was put before the House. How would my hon. Friend envisage such a problem being dealt with?
  Mrs. Adams: The Secretary of State would have to deal with the recommendations made by the commission and make some sense of them when presenting them to the House. [Laughter.] I know that he will be delighted by that thought, but that is the way the cookie crumbles. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (David Hamilton) that concern has been expressed about list Members muscling in—I believe that that is the phrase that has been used—on directly elected Members' constituencies. This applies to all parties; it is not a party political point. Directly elected Members felt that specific issues were being cherry-picked, and that it was not necessarily the topic of the day that was being picked out but the one that was the most politically favourable. Campaigns were being set up.
  Given the present boundary of my constituency, if we do not have coterminous boundaries, the new constituency will have three directly elected MSPs and eight list MSPs. That means that 11 people will have an interest in that one constituency. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities told the Committee that it had great difficulty in answering questions coming from the directly elected MSP and also from the list MSPs. It said that it was sometimes asked as many as 600 questions on the same subject. That was causing a great deal of difficulty, and the bureaucracy involved was enormous.
  Anne Picking: I am happy to go on record as saying that I support the principle of coterminous boundaries for all elections in constituencies and wards, particularly in Scotland. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that although the Scottish Parliament has the right to introduce any electoral system that it likes for local government, if it does not participate in the work of the commission and listen to what it says, rather than going its own way, there could be a danger of the whole thing falling apart?
  Mrs. Adams: The Scottish Parliament has indicated that it is prepared to participate, and we all welcome that.
  Coterminous boundaries are necessary, mainly for the electorate. They should not matter to us—we should find ways round the issue—but the electorate need the easiest system that we can come up with to enable them

  1167
  to vote. Until now, people have been used to building blocks from one part of the system to the other, in relation to each tier of government. In local government in my constituency, for example, there are 15 council seats and one MSP.
  Pete Wishart: In the numerous surgeries that the hon. Lady conducts in her constituency, how many members of the public have come to her and expressed their concern about coterminosity?
  Mrs. Adams: None of them would put it in quite those terms, but they might express the difficulty with having different systems. In fact, the Electoral Commission told us that, after the last Scottish parliamentary elections, it carried out a survey that found that 13 per cent. of those who did not vote did not do so because the system confused them. They honestly did not understand it. If the hon. Gentleman cares to read the Select Committee report, he will find that evidence in it.
  People have been used to building blocks from one tier of democracy to the other. The old regional councils were probably the best example of that. There were five district council seats, three regional council seats and one MP. People understood that; they understood who their directly elected Member was and which tier of government was represented by whom. It is important that we retain that. That is why we considered that there should be two directly elected Members to Edinburgh per Westminster seat. The commission should come up with a way for that to be achieved.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: The hon. Lady mentioned list Members parachuting into constituencies. I understand that the code of conduct for MSPs requires that they
  "should not misrepresent the basis on which they are elected or the area that they serve".
  Does that mean that list MSPs are not allowed to describe themselves as "the MSP for Paisley, North", in the way that Liberal MEPs in my patch describe themselves as "the MEP for the Isle of Wight"?
  Mrs. Adams: There is a code of conduct, but, unfortunately, it is often broken. I do not know what the Liberals do in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but some concern has been expressed over such issues.
  I am also concerned that people see MSPs differently under that system. They see directly elected MSPs as having a different role from list MSPs, and I do not like the idea of a two-tier system of MSPs—or MPs, for that matter. That would not be a good way to go. I welcome the commission that has been announced today, but I am a wee bit concerned about commissions taking decisions such as these. As I have said, I believe that it is the job of Governments to take such decisions. I worry that when the commissioners report their findings they will not suit everybody, so people will say they are a whitewash and that they knew that that was what they would say. However, I hope that everyone accepts that a commission is the best way of proceeding. I hope that it will produce a list of options for the Secretary of State, rather than a single proposal that becomes a fait accompli before it ever reaches the House.
  6.10 pm
  John Thurso: There has been considerable debate this afternoon about various electoral systems, which I shall address later in my remarks—but as for the electorate's ability to understand the electoral system, in my constituency of Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross the good electors have no trouble whatsoever understanding the electoral system. In fact, I was extremely taken aback to discover when canvassing for my MSP colleague, Jamie Stone, just how well they understood the system and the tactical voting lengths to which they went to make good use of their second vote.
  Mr. Roy: If the hon. Gentleman's constituents understood the system so well, what was the turnout?
  John Thurso: I cannot remember the exact turnout, but it was approximately 50 per cent.
  I welcome the Bill, which is short and, I hope, sweet. However, I have some reservations. I welcome the Bill for one reason alone.
  Mr. Sarwar: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  John Thurso: If the hon. Gentleman will give me half a chance, I shall give way to him shortly.
  I welcome the Bill because it gives effect to the Government's promise to maintain the number of MSPs in the Scottish Parliament, thereby maintaining the status quo.
  Mr. Sarwar: I accept that the hon. Gentleman advocates proportional representation, because it benefits the Liberal Democrats and the nationalists. However, I am at a loss to explain why he supports having four different voting systems for elections for councils, the Scottish Parliament, Westminster and the European Parliament. I believed that the Liberal Democrats were concerned about different voting systems.
  John Thurso: If the hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to let me get past my opening remarks, he would discover that I do not support our having four voting systems. I hope that he will permit me to develop that argument in a moment.
  The current proportional system does not favour the Liberal Democrats. If we do the maths, we can see that other systems are slightly better. However, the critical point is that proportionality benefits the electors, and that is what we should be thinking most about. It was apparent to most of us who were involved in the passage of the Scotland Act 1998 that a drop of almost 20 per cent. in the number of MSPs would almost certainly be unworkable. There were widespread reports at the time that the then Scottish Office and the then Secretary of State for Scotland, Donald Dewar, wished to amend section 86 and other relevant provisions to decouple the Scottish parliamentary constituencies from Westminster constituencies. Indeed, I can confirm that in a private conversation that I had with Donald Dewar after the passage of the Act, he admitted as much.
  Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman's recollection is exactly the same as mine, because I had exactly the same

  1169
  private conversations. However, the key point that people made was that imposing a number on an unwilling Scottish Parliament would be inconceivable. Does that not demonstrate that this discussion should be repatriated to the Scottish Parliament?
  John Thurso: I shall not get into an argument about repatriation, but the hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Whether the matter is dealt with here or in the Scottish Parliament, it is inconceivable that it should be done without consultation and a consensus in Scotland.
  John Robertson: As someone who took over Donald Dewar's constituency, and as a friend, I find that people rewrite history only after someone is dead. The rewriting of history never took place when that person was alive. Can the hon. Gentleman explain why those private conversations have suddenly come out, because they did not when the man was alive?
  John Thurso: Other people were present when that conversation took place, and after our debate I would be happy to tell the hon. Gentleman to whom he could speak.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: It is important to know what Donald Dewar is alleged to have said. What did he actually say?
  John Thurso: He gave me the impression that he would prefer the matter to be decoupled and the numbers maintained, but had lost the argument in Cabinet.
  Mr. Roy: The hon. Gentleman says that Donald Dewar gave him that impression. Does that mean that he said those words, or did the hon. Gentleman just take it that that was what he meant?
  John Thurso: That was my understanding of a conversation that took place in 1998—they are not the exact words.
  I should like to make some progress. It comes as no surprise that this matter has required attention, and it is to the Government's credit that they have sought to remedy an obvious error. The Bill has certain merits, and I shall deal with two that strike me. First, it is commendably short—I always like short legislation—and secondly, without question, it does the job that it is intended to do, which is to maintain the status quo at Holyrood. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I therefore welcome it. However, the Government may have missed an opportunity to take a longer look at the way in which the electoral system in Scotland operates, and they could have introduced proposals to address the problem. However, the announcement by the Secretary of State today is extremely helpful, and I welcome his comments. I look forward to reading them in Hansard to make sure that I have understood his announcement.
  It makes sense, however, for an independent commission to look at coterminosity and methods of election as soon as is practicable. I welcome the fact that, as I hope, the commission will begin work this year, and
  1170
  that its membership will be independent. I very much hope that it will stick with two key principles in the work of the Scottish Constitutional Convention—that a broad consensus will be sought, and that the commission will adhere to proportionality in representation. The Secretary of State made it clear in response to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) that those two principles would be included in the commission's brief, or guiding principles.
  My hon. Friends and I have long argued for the merits of the single transferable vote, and shall continue to do so. In addition to the obvious merit of being the most proportionate and fair system, it would, if adopted, have the added attraction of mirroring the proposed system for local government in Scotland, and dealing with the issue of coterminosity. However, I shall leave that for today, and look forward to submitting our evidence to the commission.
  The report on the subject by the Scottish Affairs Committee is both timely and germane, and I am glad that we have had an opportunity to see it before the debate. First, it makes it abundantly clear that there is widespread support for maintaining the numbers. The proposal was backed by my party, the Scottish Labour party, the Scottish National party, the Scottish Parliament and the Executive, which is as broad a consensus as is possible in politics. The reason for that broad consensus is simple—it is the experience of the Scottish Parliament in action, particularly the Committee system, which everyone agrees has worked extremely well, and simply could not function satisfactorily with many fewer Members.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman explain, for the benefit of my constituents, why 100,000 Scots electors need five Members of Parliaments—and I mean Parliaments, in the plural—to represent them, whereas the constituents of the Isle of Wight need only one? [Interruption.] I know that that question has been asked before, but we did not get an answer.
  John Thurso: I will leave the explanation to the hon. Gentleman's constituents to him. If I were in his seat, I would be looking to have proper representation for England. He should be asking why should the people of England have less representation than the people of Scotland, not saying that English Members are disadvantaged compared with those in Scotland. That is the answer to the West Lothian question, as we said in the debate on that question in the Chamber not long ago.
  As the hon. Gentleman and others have observed, there was only one exception to the broad consensus that existed in Scotland. and that was the Scottish Conservative party, which wished the relevant provision in the current Act to remain in force. The Conservatives have made an amazing U-turn. They argued throughout the passage of the Scotland Bill in this House and the other place that the proposed reduction in numbers was wrong. One of my abiding memories from having been in another place is of watching Lord Sewel as he gamely attempted to fend off the penetrating arguments of Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, who, sadly, is no longer with us. Lord Sewel may have rebutted Lord Mackay's

  1171
  arguments in that way because he was not particularly convinced of the arguments that he was trying to advance at the time.
  Out of interest, I referred to the House of Lords Hansard for 22 October 1998. After a long, cogent, well argued and structured speech comprehensively debunking the idea of reducing numbers, Lord Mackay said in summation:
  "Therefore, I cannot think of anything dafter for the Government to do than to say to this parliament, 'You can start off with 129 members, but when the House of Commons inevitably reduces that number to about 58 Scottish members…your numbers will be reduced in a similar manner—"'.
  He added:
  "I hope that the Government are going to listen and amend the Bill accordingly because nothing short of that will do." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 October 1998; Vol. 593, c. 1600.]
  What has changed?
  Mr. Alistair Carmichael: Perhaps the rationale behind the Conservative position now—and then—is that whenever it sees change proposed, and whatever that change is to be, it is against it.
  John Thurso: I think that my hon. Friend is trying to say that the Conservatives are a tad opportunistic.
  Lord Mackay and I disagreed on many things in politics, but on the occasion to which I have referred we were in accord. Later, when I moved an amendment to deal with the anomaly, I was delighted to see that all the Conservative Members of the other place followed me into the Lobby to support it. It was duly passed in another place. I regret that we were unable to achieve the same feat in this place, and it was duly removed by this House.
  As I have said, I often disagreed with Lord Mackay, but I respected him both as a man and a parliamentarian. I believe that he was right in October 1998, and that nothing has changed except the current Scottish Conservative party, which seems hellbent on swapping obscurity for lunacy.
  Jim Sheridan: On a couple of occasions the hon. Gentleman has mentioned friends and colleagues who are no longer with us. In the wake of the private conversations that he had with them, did either of them ever mention the hokey-cokey politicians who cannot make up their minds whether they will stay in this Parliament or in the Scottish Parliament?
  John Thurso: Everything that I have quoted from Lord Mackay is in Hansard. As for the hokey-cokey, I remember that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, said that as long as you were in the Chair there would be no hokey-cokey in this Chamber. I think we will leave it at that.
  There clearly is nothing dafter than maintaining the reduction, and the Government are right to have addressed that point.
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: The hon. Gentleman has been having a little bit of fun about the Conservative party's position now compared with its stance during the passage of the Scotland Bill. He should acknowledge that Lord Mackay in the House of
  1172
  Lords and my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) in the House of Commons both made the point that the numbers should be reduced in the Scotland Bill—that is, that the Bill, as it went through Parliament, was wrong.
  John Thurso: The hon. Lady is right, inasmuch as the noble Lord argued that whatever numbers we started off with, we should continue with them. I think that if Lord Mackay were here today he would maintain that position. Undoubtedly he would have preferred to start with 108. However, given the choice of 129 reducing to 108 or 129 continuing, he made it clear that he wanted to stay with the 129.
  The Scottish Affairs Committee's report deals with coterminosity. All the evidence clearly shows that coterminosity is highly desirable, particularly for political organisers. It is also extremely convenient for the electors. In the short term, the status quo envisaged in the Bill is therefore the lesser of two evils, but in the longer term it must be right and desirable to achieve conterminous boundaries.
  There is clearly far less consensus on voting systems, as has been evidenced this afternoon. The recommendation of the Committee, while clearly interesting and deserving of serious consideration, does not, in my opinion, maintain the concept of proportionality. However, I can see how that might be varied. As the proposal is currently written, four voting systems would still be involved. I suspect—perhaps the remarks made this afternoon confirm this—that the Committee's attention was more focused on reducing the interference that it perceives from this place than on what might be the best voting system.
  I have already welcomed the Secretary of State's announcement bringing forward the review. I will leave it at that on electoral systems, because, like my right hon. and hon. Friends, I look forward to advancing the argument for the single transferable vote when the commission starts its work.
  The Conservatives have tabled an amendment that a short while ago their colleagues would, as I have recounted to the House, have described as daft. Of all the opportunistic mumbo jumbo that has emanated from the Opposition Dispatch Box, this one takes the biscuit. We are invited to oppose the Bill, despite the support for it in all other quarters, because it is said not to address the proliferation of politicians in Scotland. What proliferation? What are we talking about? We are talking about either maintaining the status quo—that can hardly be described as a proliferation—or reducing the number by about 21 persons. How many politicians are there in Scotland, even with us, local councillors and MSPs? There must be 1,000 or more. If a reduction of 21 in 1,000 is a proliferation, I fail to see the logic.
  Mr. Peter Duncan: I know that the hon. Gentleman has a vigorous campaign of surgeries in his constituency. If he were to ask people attending those surgeries whether there were too many politicians in Scotland or too few, what does he think most of them would say?
  John Thurso: Most of my constituents would simply like to get something done by the politician to whom they are speaking—and I have never concerned myself about the Conservative list MSPs who parachute in from time to time.

  1173
  The proliferation that the Conservatives choose to talk about is inexplicable, unless they are seeking to sabotage the devolution settlement and go back to the days before there was a Scottish Parliament. The amendment that they tabled makes no sense. Either the Conservative party still does not accept devolution or the amendment is illogical.
  The Bill is short. It is, I hope, an interim measure before moving on to sunnier pastures, and I hope that that period will be short and sweet. It does not go quite as far as my right hon. and hon. Friends and I would like, but it does the job and starts the process, and for that reason we welcome it and will vote for it.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) started his speech by telling us about the wonderful plaudits for proportional representation. He said that PR benefits the public. I will tell the House who PR benefited at the last Scottish Parliament elections. The party that 86 per cent of the people voted against decided who would be the First Minister. That is what PR did for the people of Scotland. Those who argue the case for PR should remember that very simple fact.
  Mr. Salmond: Did it come to the wrong decision?
  Mr. Hood: It certainly did not, but I did not agree with some of the arguments that were put forward in support of that decision. I certainly did not support the move for PR for local government. I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to put that on the record.
  I, too, should like to put on record a bit of history. We have had some history from the Secretary of State tonight and from others. I was fortunate to be present for a lot of the discussions on the various electoral systems, and, as most Labour Members will know, the Labour party was dragged into supporting PR at the Scottish convention. Let me tell the House how the votes stacked up in the Scottish Executive when the decision was made. It was an equal vote and the chairman's casting vote decided it. The chairman at the time was a Member of Parliament from one of the Edinburgh constituencies. He is not with us, so I shall not name him. The Member of Parliament who was supposed to represent the Westminster Members of Parliament on the Scottish Executive, the overwhelming majority of whom were against PR, voted for PR against the wishes of his Westminster colleagues. Those Labour Members who, to put it politely, may wish to reconsider history, should remember that the Labour party is strongly against PR.
  Sir Robert Smith: I accept that many in the Labour party are strongly against PR, but if the hon. Gentleman looks back at the history, was it not that those who believed that a Scottish parliament was essential to good governance in Scotland realised that the only way in which that could be delivered was by agreeing to PR to reassure the electorate in Scotland, particularly outside of Glasgow and Edinburgh, that they could vote for a Scottish parliament in the referendum? It was only by
  1174
  delivering PR that Labour, and people such as Donald Dewar, realised that we could finally get a Scottish parliament to look at legislation in Scotland.
  Mr. Hood: In 1997, the Labour Government could have legislated for a Scottish Parliament with a first-past-the-post system and we would have had better governance in Scotland now than perhaps we have with the wishy-washy Liberals as part of the Executive.
  To return to my trip down memory lane, the Labour party accepted—
  Angus Robertson: That is new consensus politics, is it?
  Mr. Hood: The Labour party accepted the consensus of the convention and went into the election promising to legislate, but with a caveat that we would put it to the people through a referendum, and it would be, to use the words of the much maligned Donald Dewar—unfairly so—the settled will of the Scottish people. It was the Scottish people who decided by an overwhelming vote in the referendum what the electoral system should be, and it was partly first past the post and partly PR.
  What we are debating today does not honour the settled will of the Scottish people or the consensus on keeping PR. I get the distinct feeling that Labour Members have been sleepwalked, and I say to my friends and colleagues in the Scottish Parliament that the MSPs have been sleepwalked, into PR, which the Labour party would never have supported in the convention. That was never part of the negotiations in that settlement. I do not share the point of view of those who say that it was always the intention to keep the size of the Parliament at 129 Members and to change the electoral system.
  There was a huge row when the Prime Minister and Lord Robertson, then the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, argued the case for the referendum. There were to be two votes, and I supported the argument for the referendum. I can remember telling the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister, that I was supporting the call for the referendum to entrench the will of the Scottish people in the settlement. We argued for entrenchment because we were worried about a future Tory party coming in and undoing the Scottish Parliament, which we supported. Yet here we are debating a narrow change in the Scotland Act 1998, which those of us who strongly believe in first past the post—there are a number of us in Scotland, especially within the Scottish Labour party—think means that what we agreed to, which we supported in good faith, will be taken away from us, and I do not feel at all comfortable with that.
  The reduction in the number of MSPs was part of that agreement. No one said to me at any time that they wanted to keep the same number of MSPs. Sacrosanct to me was the coterminosity of the constituency boundaries of the MSPs and the Westminster MPs, and that is so important today. For example, under the new boundaries there are two seats in Lanarkshire. One is Lanark and Hamilton, East and the other East Kilbride.
  Mr. Roy: South Lanarkshire.
  Mr. Hood: It is fair to draw that distinction, and I will too.

  1175
  I shall speak slowly for emphasis. There has been talk of over-governance, but 19 MSPs will have a claim to the Lanark and Hamilton, East seat, and 19 MSPs will have a claim to the East Kilbride seat. How can we justify that so-called governance? We are not talking about over-governance. In moving away from what we originally agreed, we could be bringing ourselves into disrepute.
  We had two consultations, because the first had to be extended for six months because no one was very interested. I have heard that there were 17 representations in support of the case for reducing the number of 129 Members. During the six-month extension, there was a considerable increase in the number of contributions.
  Then we had the statement from my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell) as Secretary of State for Scotland. One of the things in that statement that alarmed me, which I remember pointing out, was the setting up of the commission after 2007. I am pleased that the Secretary of State returned to that issue and spoke about setting up a commission straight away.
  I share some of the views of my hon. Friends about this commission of the wonderful and good. I am sure that it will include experts and independent people, but I have yet to meet people who are independent but do not have a view on a range of issues. I do not want us to start hiring out—I borrow a phrase that I have heard in the House—the decisions of Parliament to commissions and committees. Decisions on legislation should be taken by the legislators. It is for us to take such decisions. There has obviously been an agreement with the Government to keep the 129 Members, and I have no difficulty with that, but the consequential changes in the electoral system must be looked at, and I do not think that they should be dealt with by independent commissions. I have no objections to such bodies having a look at those matters, but I must be firm in saying that it is a must that the decisions on whatever electoral system flows from the decision to keep the 129 Members should be for this Parliament and this Parliament alone. Such decisions should not be influenced by people who are outside Parliament, and even outside the Scottish Parliament. I hold that view very firmly indeed.
  Mr. Sarwar: I support my hon. Friend 100 per cent. in saying that constituency boundaries for the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament should be coterminous. If the Electoral Commission came up with a proposal that gave us coterminous boundaries with proportionality, would he accept it?
  Mr. Hood: No. I support the first-past-the-post system. Unless the system has a first-past-the-post ingredient, I shall certainly not support it.
  Mr. Roy: Does my hon. Friend agree that, for many people, proportional representation is something that is spoken about by the chattering classes and not the ordinary men and women of Scotland? Does he think that, when the independent commission is formed, it will include miners, steelworkers, shipbuilders, doctors, nurses and housewives?
  Mr. Hood: I would be pleasantly surprised if such people were included on the commission. Of course, I am sure that there will be no lawyers and so on!
  1176
  I shall not support the Conservatives in their opportunistic approach. A fortnight ago tomorrow, the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) said that he would not vote in principle on an English issue. I wonder how many English MPs will traipse through the Lobby this evening.
  Mr. Peter Duncan: Does the hon. Gentleman not understand the simple truth that the matter under discussion is not devolved to the Scottish Parliament? Higher education in Scotland is devolved to the Scottish Parliament.
  Mr. Hood: Having listened to the Secretary of State and read the Bill, I take the view that the decision will affect only the Scottish Parliament. That is my reading of the Bill, and I suspect that the hon. Gentleman entirely understands that.
  If the decision is that the 129 figure is sacrosanct, I want common boundaries. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, on an excellent report and on raising all the issues. It is important that we have a first-past-the-post element and an element of proportionality, to keep faith with what was decided in the convention that was agreed before the Scotland Act took effect. Along with some colleagues, I hope to table amendments on that issue for consideration in Committee.
  I wish to end my speech with a message for my colleagues in the Scottish Parliament. When they get the opportunity to make representations to the august commission that is going to be set up, they should remember that the best way of preserving the rights of their representation and of keeping their job in that Parliament will be to support the system that still includes first past the post. Without that, they will be sleepwalking into a 100 per cent. PR system that will give the Liberals total power over their Parliament and which will not give that power to the people, where it should be vested.
  6.46 pm
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, which has been somewhat hijacked by the announcement of the inquiry into the number of voting systems. I have a certain sympathy with the need for the commission, but I think that we will be doing down Scotland's education system if we suggest that the Scottish people cannot cope with four different voting systems. Perhaps it would be neater if the systems were the same, but I do not think that it is beyond the wit of Scots men and women to be able to cope with different voting systems, even in the same election.
  The Secretary of State referred to this Bill as a small Bill. In my view, it will be the first of many such small Bills. While most of us in the Chamber would agree that the devolution settlement is here to stay, the Scotland Act 1998 is not perfect legislation, as the Bill before us indicates. Not very long ago, we saw the report from Lord Norton, which pointed out the difficulties in respect of any seriously robust mechanism for dispute resolution. We may well find, for instance, that the publication of the NHS tariff in England and Wales has

  1177
  a knock-on effect on the Scottish health service, which could lead to disputes with the Scottish Parliament and Executive. Section 28(7) of the 1998 Act states:
  "This section does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland."
  That could cause difficulties in due course. That is why I think that this will be the first in a series of small Bills that will detain the House. We should not be complacent about the finality of the settlement.
  Mr. Carmichael: I am anxious to explore why the hon. Lady thinks that the power of this place to legislate on Scottish matters should be a source of difficulty. Does she anticipate that, perhaps under some future Government, this place will seek to legislate on an otherwise devolved matter in defiance of the Scottish Parliament?
  Mrs. Lait: I am happy to deal with that point. Indeed, that is why I cited the NHS tariff, which could have a knock-on effect on the Scottish health service. Under the 1998 Act, the Scottish Parliament controls the delivery of the Scottish health service, so it may have a difficulty with the way in which the tariff interacts with the Scottish health system. As time passes and different policies are introduced, perhaps under different parties, there will be no reason why such difficulties should not emerge, and they will have to be dealt with one way or another.
  I take great pleasure in supporting my Front-Bench colleagues in opposing the Bill. I am not doing that entirely because of the arguments made during the passage of the Scotland Act. I thought it was a mistake that the Government were not prepared to decide that the number of MSPs should be a responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. That showed that the Government were not quite prepared to treat the Scottish Parliament as a grown-up Parliament.
  Mr. Salmond: Hear, hear.
  Mrs. Lait: I would hate to give any comfort to the Scottish National party, because I recognise that that is its policy.
  Sir Robert Smith: The hon. Lady says that she will vote against the Bill but feels that it should be up to the Scottish Parliament to decide what size that Parliament should be. The Scottish Parliament has asked for this Bill to be passed. If she believes that the Scottish Parliament should be listened to, should she not listen to it and vote for the Bill?
  Mrs. Lait: I said that the Scottish Parliament should make the decision, not this House. The Labour Government did not have the courage of their convictions in giving the Scottish Parliament that power.
  Mr. Salmond: Just because the Labour Government do not have the courage of their convictions is no excuse
  1178
  for the hon. Lady not to have the courage of hers. By a massive majority, the Scottish Parliament wants to stay at 129. Why will she not support it?
  Mrs. Lait: In my view, the Scottish Parliament has not had a true opportunity to examine the reduction in numbers. That is not the principal reason why I am against the Bill; the key reason is that I believe in smaller government.
  Mr. Donohoe: Given that Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen have been unable to give the numbers they are proposing, will the hon. Lady do so?
  Mrs. Lait: If the hon. Gentleman took part in the Scottish Parliament elections, he will remember that we made it clear how we believed the Scottish Parliament should be structured. We believed that the number of first-past-the-post Members should be reduced to the same number as the Westminster constituencies. There should then be a top-up of 49 from the list system, making 108. We also said that we could not understand why 22 Ministers were required in Scotland. I used to work in the Scottish Office in the good old days when four Ministers managed to run all the legislation. [HON. MEMBERS: "The poll tax?"] I should point out that I worked there when the Labour Government were in power between 1974 and 1979. [HON. MEMBERS: "Is that why they lost?"] I would love to think that one civil servant could have that impact on a Labour Government; they imploded in the same way as this one is imploding.
  In terms of the way in which legislation is dealt with in the Scottish Parliament, there is an argument for more Ministers; we argued for eight. We argued also for a reduction in the number of Committees in the Scottish Parliament. We believe that Scotland is over-governed and there are too many politicians. Approximately 10 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom live in Scotland, but there are 129 MSPs compared with 659 Members here; that proportion is equivalent to about 20 per cent. Scotland would benefit from a reduction in the number of politicians, which is why we oppose the Bill.
  Mr. Carmichael: The hon. Lady says that it is her party's policy to make the number of Members here the same as the number of constituency MSPs in the Scottish Parliament. Is she telling my constituents that she will end the separate representation of Orkney and Shetland? My constituents would be interested to hear that.
  Mrs. Lait: I apologise; that was a small slip. I thank the hon. Gentleman for correcting me. However, the principle remains the same.
  The support expressed for the retention of 129 MSPs brings to mind a phrase that no one has yet quoted, concerning trotters and troughs. Over the past two years, there has been huge criticism in Scotland of the number of MSPs and people believe that the Parliament would benefit from a reduction in numbers.
  Many people have talked about the difficulty of coterminosity. I sympathise with those who are dealing with, potentially, 19 Members of both Parliaments. That must be difficult, but it is not beyond the wit of man

  1179
  or woman to work with those numbers. To a much lesser extent, all of us are dealing with coterminosity problems because, as a result of proportional representation, we have to deal with a multiplicity of Members of the European Parliament.
  Mr. Roy: The hon. Lady says that it is not beyond the wit of man to work with 19 MSPs. Is she saying that we should keep the same number? That is not what she was saying earlier.
  Mrs. Lait: I was sympathising with the difficulty of dealing with a multiplicity of Members of the Scottish Parliament and of this Parliament; I talked about "Parliaments". In my constituency of Beckenham, I have to deal with eight MEPs; not as many as 19, or the 15 that that might be reduced to. However, there is a problem of coterminosity throughout the system, largely because—here I agree with the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood)—of proportional representation. If we got rid of PR, we would not have coterminosity problems. With first past the post, all these problems iron themselves out. I do not have a problem with the first-past-the-post system; neither do the Conservatives. The foreign importation of PR is causing a lot of problems.
  Mr. Roy: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Lait: Have I confused the hon. Gentleman again?
  Mr. Roy: Slightly. If the hon. Lady is saying that the first-past-the-post system is not a problem and that she agrees with it, why does she not say that the whole of the Scottish Parliament should be elected according to that arrangement?
  Mrs. Lait: If I were a purist, I could be tempted down that route. I am tempted also to compare the opinion polls now with those before the last parliamentary elections, but I will resist. I support the first-past-the-post system for all elections and I have sympathy with hon. Members who talk about coterminosity. I cannot see how the proposed election system will sort out that issue. However, it is much more important to give better governance to the Scottish people, and that will come about by reducing the number of MSPs. That is why I will be voting against the Government.
  Mr. John MacDougall: Are you making the point that you want to decide today to reduce the number of MSPs, but that you want to give the Scottish Parliament the decision on whether it should retain the figure of 129?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am not seeking to make any decisions. I think the hon. Gentleman means the hon. Lady.
  Mrs. Lait: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would suggest that the issue before us today is that of the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament. On that basis, I shall vote against the Bill, because it maintains that number.
  1180
  No hon. Member—other than the Secretary of State, for which I give him credit—talked about the second part of the Bill, which deals with boundaries and the demise of the boundary commissions. That is covered by the legislation on the Electoral Commission. Nevertheless, it is a great shame that the boundary commissions are disappearing, given their very high reputation for impartiality. I hope that the breadth of responsibilities assumed by the Electoral Commission will not in any way, shape or form impinge on the boundary commissions, which have done such a good job for us throughout the country over many years.
  On those grounds, I will vote with the Opposition tonight to oppose the maintenance of the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament.
  7.1 pm
  Mr. Brian Wilson: I need hardly say that I shall not be joining the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye—
  Mrs. Lait: I am hugely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but my constituency is Beckenham—it used to be Hastings and Rye.
  Mr. Wilson: I apologise to the hon. Lady—I have clearly been here too long. She has refreshed my memory; I now remember that she was first burned in effigy, then voted out in Hastings.
  I am afraid that this is the last point at which I can bring much comfort to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I sympathise with my right hon. Friend, whom I do not hold responsible in any way for what we face, and who is doing his best to bring some sort of reason and order to a very bad job. However, questions must be asked and fundamental criticisms made regarding how we got here.
  Usually, when a Bill comes before the House it can be argued for, however misguidedly, on the ground that it advances the public interest in some way. However, this Bill is the exception: I cannot find any conceivable public interest that will be served by it. On the contrary, it is, as we all know, simply the legislative follow-up to a political fix. The problem that initially confronted us was quite straightforward. Our Government had made two relevant commitments, both of which I accepted and subscribed to: first, to cut the number of Scottish MPs being returned to Westminster; and, secondly, to amend the number of MSPs sitting in the Scottish Parliament in the same proportion.
  So far, so good. If proceeded with in conjunction, those measures would have enjoyed general public support, apart from a few bleatings from the political fringes in Scotland. The problem is that the second commitment was reneged on to appease those political fringes and their vociferous supporters among the Scottish chattering classes. However, going ahead with the first commitment and abandoning the second is not a victimless solution. Without doubt, our two commitments were interdependent in their logic and symmetry: if one is abandoned, the other makes no sense, or, at the very least, will have to be paid for in another way.
  I feel sufficiently exercised to speak in this way on a Government measure because I believe that the confusion that will be created by abandoning the second

  1181
  part of the Government's commitment will be paid for by the people whom we are all supposed to be here to represent. That is the nature of the fix that has been entered into. In order to avoid reducing the number of MSPs, further confusion will be heaped gratuitously on to the old, the frail and the vulnerable, who from time to time need to consult their elected representatives. In arriving at that fix, no member of the political classes gave a single thought to those people—our constituents. That, I regret to say, has been the spirit of the debate. With the exception of one brief reference by the Secretary of State, no mention has been made of the Bill's effects on the people who do not necessarily always want us, but sometimes need us.
  There is already a great deal of confusion in Scottish politics about the delineation between reserved and devolved matters, although most of us can help to overcome that problem simply by sharing offices and providing what amounts to a joint service—admittedly, not in every part of Scotland, but in most parts. Further confusion is created by that curious breed of humanity, list MSPs, who, to all intents and purposes, have no constituencies and no constituents. Some of them find that extremely satisfactory, for obvious reasons, and do not trouble anyone; others are Walter Mitty characters who set themselves up as alternative MSPs in specific constituencies and tout for business from the unwary. However, as long as there are recognisable constituencies, the vast majority of people in Scotland at least know which constituency they live in and who their elected constituency representatives are—where to go and to whom to go. Now, gratuitously and for no good reason, even that safeguard of the public interest is casually to be dispensed with. Hundreds of thousands of people throughout Scotland will find themselves in one constituency for Westminster purposes and another constituency for Holyrood purposes. Constituencies where MPs and MSPs work well together to give an integrated service will be split two, three or even four different ways. As we have heard, some Westminster constituencies will be shadowed, for devolved purposes, by up to 20 MSPs. The whole thing is ludicrous—and entirely unnecessary, because all we had to do was stick to the two original commitments.
  What I find really offensive about this episode is not some abstract political aspect, nor any of the stuff that has been bandied about this evening, but the complete lack of regard for the consumer interest. It has been all about politicians looking for a way out of a minor political dilemma that will cause the least inconvenience to other politicians: never mind the punters who have to track down the person who can be of use to them at a particular time; never mind the view that the public will take of a new system that might have been designed for the sole purpose of confusing them and bringing political representation into further disrepute; and never mind the highly relevant fact cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams), that 15 per cent. of voters have been driven away from the polls by the confusions already created in Scottish politics.
  The horse must be put back in front of the cart—the anomalies must be addressed in advance of the changes being made, not at some dim and distant point in the future. That is where I disagree with the hon. Member
  1182
  for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso). He spent half his speech talking about the virtues of coterminousity—or coterminality, or whatever term happens to be in fashion tonight—but we are introducing legislation that will abolish that virtue. This is not a done deed—we are setting up a commission to revise what has not yet been legislated for. Would it not be better to do things in chronological order by addressing the problems before they have been created?
  All along, the starting point for this exercise should have been that the boundaries remain the same for Westminster and Holyrood: non-negotiable, full stop. That was the way in which to concentrate minds, and that is what we should still do.
  Mr. Salmond: Surely, as the Secretary of State said, there are already problems in relation to different electoral systems. Any of us might share the hon. Gentleman's thoughts about the list system—which, after all, was introduced by the Government in whom he served—but are we not being offered the prospect of some of those difficulties being attended to?
  Mr. Wilson: I respectfully suggest that acceptance of that proposition displays some naiveté on the hon. Gentleman's part; and I suspect that if there is one thing that he does not like being accused of, it is that. To me, the commission sounds like a classic Sir Humphrey mechanism. One can imagine the discussion that took place: "We are creating a shambles—what are we to do? We'll set up a commission. When will the commission report? After the shambles has been created." I revert to my original point—why not get the chronology right and sort everything out before the shambles is created?
  I have no quarrel with the remit or the outcome of the boundary commission review of Scottish seats, but it is not too late to say that it will be implemented only when a compatible formula, based on coterminal constituency boundaries, has been agreed for the Scottish Parliament.
  I do not believe that the figure of 108 is any more sacrosanct than 129. If people want 130, 150 or 170 seats, I do not care very much. Electoral systems can be devised to satisfy any of those numbers. However, the system must be created on the basis of the same boundaries for both elections. I am not, therefore, devising a way of getting rid of 21 MSPs, although I doubt whether maintaining, under all circumstances, 129 MSPs is a great popular cause in Scotland. If that is the stumbling block, there are other methods of dealing with it. However, the way is not to destroy one of the few things that provide political and representational comprehension in Scotland: the fact that we have the same boundaries, the same offices and the same representation.
  I repeat that I do not blame my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but I ask him to consider the course that I have outlined if it is the only way to force progress on the wider issue, and not to implement the Bill until coterminality has been sorted out. Surely there can be unanimity in the parties in Scotland: whatever the perceptions of marginal short-term political advantage or disadvantage, we do not want to legislate to establish an electoral system that we all know will work to the practical, and in some cases serious disadvantage, of our constituents.

  1183
  If, even at this late stage, we do not stop to contemplate the essential stupidity of what is being done, people in Scotland who are adversely affected by the measure will have a long time to wonder how politicians could create a total mess out of something that should be as straightforward and comprehensible as possible.
  7.12 pm
  Pete Wishart: It is a pleasure and a privilege to take part in the first debate on the Scotland Act since it was passed in 1998. We follow many illustrious speakers in the debates on that measure, including my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), and many Labour Members. It is unfortunate that the way in which the Bill is framed means that we have no opportunity to discuss the many pertinent issues that affect the Scottish Parliament. An opportunity has been lost.
  With due respect to the Secretary of State, the debate is a little hypothetical. We are working on the assumption that the number of Scottish Members of Parliament will be reduced at the next general election. However, no one has said definitively that that will happen. Let us imagine that a general election takes place in two months—that was entirely possible a few weeks ago. We would fight with the existing boundaries. What would happen in 2007? On what sort of membership would we fight an election for the Scottish Parliament? There are many questions to ask. Our debate is based on an assumption that the number of Members of Parliament will be reduced. I appeal to the Under-Secretary to tell us when she replies to the debate whether we shall fight the next general election under existing boundaries.
  This first debate on the Scotland Act since it was passed is timely. The Scottish Parliament is at a crossroads and faces severe challenges. It has lost the confidence of the Scottish people, and we should be considering many other subjects, instead of wasting time on coterminosity and voting arrangements. We wanted to introduce a series of amendments that would give the Scottish Parliament new powers. It is unfortunate that we will not have an opportunity to do that.
  I examined the Scottish social attitudes survey, which has appeared in several newspapers, and the Scottish people appear to be two or three steps ahead of the Government and the Scottish Executive, because their solution to some of the Scottish Parliament's difficulties is to increase its powers. The overwhelming majority of the Scottish people who took part in the survey suggested giving the Scottish Parliament more powers as a method of tackling its difficulties. Every survey that has been conducted appears to yield the same results: people believe that the Scottish Parliament needs more powers to meet the genuine expectations that the Scottish public had when it was established.
  I was impressed with the debate that we held in the Scottish Grand Committee a couple of months ago on a Liberal Democrat motion about the evolution of the devolution settlement. Much good came out of that. We did not agree on many things, but we all signed up to one overriding statement: devolution is a process, not an event. We might have difficulty in defining where the process ends—that is a legitimate debate, which it is
  1184
  right to hold—but I listened carefully and eagerly to Labour Members, and they too said that devolution was not an event but a process. We might be different from hon. Members of other parties because we are impatient for the process to continue. We want some progress to show that devolution is a process. I hope that we shall get there.
  I am sure that the Secretary of State has been impressed by some of the debates in the Scottish Parliament. Even some notable and eminent Labour MSPs now believe, along with so much of Scottish civic society and the business community, that the Scottish Parliament needs greater fiscal and economic powers. We have a notable new recruit to that campaign in the shape of Robert Crawford, the former chief executive of Scottish Enterprise.
  Rosemary McKenna: The hon. Gentleman should not be surprised at Mr. Robert Crawford's return to the Scottish National party fold.
  Pete Wishart: I am not sure about that, but we cannot ignore the views of someone who ran Scottish Enterprise and knows much about what the Scottish economy requires and what makes it tick.
  We will support Second Reading. We believe that a minimum of 129 MSPs is required to ensure that the Scottish Parliament runs efficiently and effectively. All the political parties—apart from the Conservative party—are signed up to that figure. I was impressed by some of the evidence that was given to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs when the question was put. Many people said that 129 MSPs were required to make the effective Committee system work. It was identified as one of the Scottish Parliament's strengths. Its pre-legislative scrutiny is one of the most valuable aspects of work in the Scottish Parliament. The Select Committee report clearly concluded that 129 MSPs were required.
  There are honourable exceptions in the Labour ranks who do not support the figure of 129, and we have heard some contributions from them this evening. I am thankful that they, in conjunction with the Conservatives, are lonely and isolated voices. I shall be interested to note how many Labour Members vote with Conservative Members, in alliance against the Scottish Parliament. As I said, they are isolated, forlorn voices.
  It will surprise the Scottish public to find that the House of Commons determines the membership of the Scottish Parliament and that distant Westminster decides on its voting arrangements. Surely our national Parliament should have that task, and be able to determine its voting arrangements and membership.
  Mrs. Adams: How many people in the hon. Gentleman's surgeries have asked him about that?
  Pete Wishart: The hon. Lady might be surprised to learn that no one has asked me about such matters. However, MSPs are exercised by the question because the Scottish Parliament should be wary if the House legislates on its behalf about membership and voting arrangements. Surely a national Parliament should legislate on those matters. The Scottish Parliament is

  1185
  unique among national Parliaments in having to cede power on those matters to another national Parliament. That is not right.
  We noted with interest the establishment of the Secretary of State's new commission to examine the arrangements. Like the Liberal Democrats, we are waiting for an invitation to serve on it. I read about the matter in The Herald today. I do not know why the Secretary of State did not tell the House before going to the newspaper. The commission appears to be a political fix. I sympathise with the Secretary of State because I know that he has a little local difficulty. On the one hand, hon. Members from the Scottish Labour ranks are determining the agenda about voting arrangements and the membership of the Scottish Parliament, and on the other, there is great anxiety among Labour MSPs who are worried about the activities of the crowd who sit behind the right hon. Gentleman. Labour MSPs should be worried about what Labour Members of Parliament are up to.
  Mr. Donohoe: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the biggest problem in Scottish politics today is the list system? The list mainly consists of members of his party.
  Pete Wishart: The list system may be the biggest problem in Scottish politics for the hon. Gentleman, but it certainly is not for me. There are much more important issues to address, and I wish that he would sometimes recognise that.
  List Members have two key functions. One is to provide the proportionality required by the Scotland Act 1998. The second function, however, at which they seem to be effective, is to wind up Labour Members. They perform that task spectacularly, and Labour Members fall for it every time. I have a list Conservative Member in my constituency, who has set up an office in my constituency and sniffs around for any scrap of attention, but we deal with him effectively. He has stood previously against me and my SNP colleague, John Swinney, and we have beaten him in successive elections. That is no problem, but I can understand why it is a problem for Labour Members, because most of them have run their constituencies like personal fiefdoms. When an energetic, enthusiastic list Member appears and tries to do things, it is a real challenge to them. If we cannot rise above the challenge of energetic and enthusiastic list Members, perhaps we do not deserve a place in this House at all.
  Mr. Hood: Does the hon. Gentleman think it right that a Conservative Member, or a member of any political party who has not been elected in his constituency by the will of the people, is allowed to spend taxpayers' money on funding offices to work against an elected person?
  Pete Wishart: That is the very system for which the hon. Gentleman voted in the Scotland Act. It is a consequence of the decision that you took, and you must accept it. He may not have voted for it
  1186
  personally—[Interruption.] I am told from a sedentary position that he did. You voted for it, and you must accept the consequences.
  Mr. Hood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. First, let me make it clear that I never voted for anything. Secondly, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is giving way a second time.
  Pete Wishart: I have looked at the amendments suggested by the Scottish Affairs Committee, which effectively propose the death knell of proportionality for the Scottish Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hear hon. Members say, "Hear, hear." I know that that is their intention and their agenda. What I do not understand about the Scottish Affairs Committee report, which I have examined carefully, is that the great and the good came down to give evidence—all the political parties, all the local authorities, the whole of civil society in Scotland—but it is as if the Committee made up a conclusion different from the evidence that it took. Most of its conclusions fly in the face of the evidence that it was given. I suggest respectfully to members of the Scottish Affairs Committee that instead of getting the great and the good down from Scotland to give them evidence for an agenda on which they had already made up their mind, they should have just had the right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) as the sole witness. Their conclusions would then probably have been much more credible.
  I have studied the evidence given to the Committee, and nowhere does any witness come forward and say, "I think that the solution to Scotland's electoral problems is to have two-Member constituencies."None of them said that, and some of them would probably laugh in the face of anyone who suggested it to them. I am intrigued as to whether any of the later contributors to this debate will explain how it will work. We have heard Labour Members' hostility to PR. They loathe it and think that it is an absurd system—that is their point of view. I presume that in two-Member constituencies the winner and the runner-up will be elected to the Scottish Parliament. What a ridiculous way to elect a Parliament—regardless of the fact that my party would do quite well under such a system.
  Mr. Hood: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that it would be better if the winner and the candidate who came last were elected, as is the case under the list system at present?
  Pete Wishart: I find the arrangement suggested by the Scottish Affairs Committee bizarre. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and explain how it works. It is like turning up to play the Scottish cup final, picking up the ball and deciding not to have a competition—both teams share the cup. It is a bizarre sort of first-past-the-post-plus.
  Most of the witnesses to the Scottish Affairs Committee have little to say about coterminosity. Yes, most of them would like to see it happen, but it did not seem to be the defining issue for most of them, although the Scottish Affairs Committee concluded that it was the defining issue in Scottish politics. The public do not care

  1187
  a whit about coterminosity. It is not on their agenda at all. When I am out and about in Blairgowrie, members of the public do not come up to me to tell me how concerned they are about coterminosity. I have had a series of surgeries in the past few weeks throughout my North Tayside constituency, and I have not had anxious constituents coming to my surgery saying that they cannot sleep at night because the constituency boundaries of their MP and their MSP may be different.
  David Cairns: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Pete Wishart: I am sorry, but I have no more time. I have a big speech to make.
  Yes, this is an issue for political parities, and it will present challenges for them. There are solutions, however. The Scottish National party has already framed solutions, and I am sure that with its resources and organisational ability, the Scottish Labour party can arrive at a solution, too, and I suspect that it will do so. People just do not care about this issue, however. For example, people in Pitlochry know that I am their MP—some of them might think that I am quite effective. People in Brechin, which is 50 miles away, also know that I am their Member of Parliament. It comes as a great surprise and shock to people in Brechin, however, to discover that I am the MP for Pitlochry, and people in Pitlochry are equally surprised to find that I am the MP for distant and remote Brechin. They could not care less, however, as long as they know who their MP is, know that their MP is effective, and know how he can be contacted. That is what concerns them most.
  I was impressed by the Secretary of State's evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee, because he concluded that that was also true in city centres. People in city centres do not know where one boundary ends and the other begins—those were his words, and he is right. He gave a very good example: somebody could move through his Edinburgh, Central constituency and arrive at George square believing that they were in his constituency, but they would be in the constituency of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz). Nobody knows where constituency boundaries are. They are boundaries that exist in the heads of politicians. The public could not care less.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Pete Wishart: No, I am sorry. I have only a few minutes.
  What the Scottish Affairs Committee should have been doing was looking at the powers of the Scottish Parliament. As I said earlier, the Scottish Parliament is facing many severe challenges. It should be considering the sluggish economic growth in Scotland and the massive issues with which we must wrestle. What does it spend time doing? It has looked at the issue of coterminosity, taken all the evidence, rejected the evidence that it received, and come to its own conclusions. I suggest respectfully that it should have been doing something more important. We look forward to the Secretary of State's commission, but let us hope that it will not just be a political fix to settle the difficulties in the Labour party between Westminster Members and Edinburgh Members.
  7.27 pm
  Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: I intend to be brief to allow more of my colleagues to speak in the debate.
  My first regret is that in the euphoria of the election campaign and afterwards in 1997, when the Bill that became the Scotland Act 1998 came to the House, I and some of my colleagues did not pay more attention to some of its content. If we had understood that we were going to sleepwalk into a situation in which we would be crawled all over by list Members, we would have looked at the Bill in a very different way. Tonight, we have the first stage of the opportunity to try to address that. On the basis of what the Secretary of State said in his statement, that process will be allowed to start.
  I commend to the House the Select Committee's report, as I believe, and have done for some considerable time, that the main problem in Scotland—
  Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman may recall that I am very much in favour of proportional representation, and I have never thought that a regional list was a particularly good system. In relation to his solution, however, if he is concerned about list Members crawling all over this constituency, how much more would the person who came second want to crawl all over his constituency?
  Mr. Donohoe: That person would be entitled to do so, but the responsiblities of the list Member were never defined as they should and probably could have been in that Act. That was a fundamental flaw. To a great extent, if that had been addressed, we would not be here tonight facing this quandary.
  I suspect that few people in my constituency and probably throughout Scotland, apart from the chattering classes, are unduly concerned about the number of MSPs, or indeed the number of MPs. What concerns people, and what is more important, is the delivery of a service. They care about education, the NHS, the economy and employment levels, and to that extent the Labour party has indeed delivered, both down here and in Edinburgh. What they will not recognise is the existence of some magic in the requirement for 129 MSPs to be retained, or in the method adopted for their election. Not one ordinary constituent has complained to me about the way in which the present system affects him or her—because it does not affect my constituents at all. What it does is create confusion in the minds of the public. As has been said, the big problem relates to who represents the public in the Scottish Parliament and in this Parliament.
  Why have we found ourselves in this position? While the Scotland Act 1998 was being debated, it was made clear that coterminous boundaries would be maintained. Only now do we find that what has happened since then is leading us towards a problem. I foresee a major problem, and have for some time. For some time I have argued forcefully, in any forum that has allowed me to do so, about the whole question of coterminosity, because I cannot accept any other arrangement.
  All today's speeches so far, apart from those of SNP Members, have suggested that there is much to be said for coterminous boundaries. Both Conservatives and

  1189
  Liberal Democrats have expressed that view; the SNP is out on a limb, but we know that its sole aim is to separate Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom.
  Aspects of the independent commission also worry me. Although it has been said that the time scale will be as limited as possible, we have been told nothing more about it; nor has the Secretary of State told us how many members the commission will have, and where they will come from. He must clarify both those points before he receives the support that would otherwise be forthcoming.
  As I have said, we have heard many arguments today about possible systems, such as proportional representation and the single transferable vote, but I do not think that the Bill's narrow drafting even allows for such arguments. It allows only for simple clauses dealing with coterminosity, and I want to concentrate on that rather than those other questions, or the question of reduction. I must point out, however, that the arithmetic of the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan), or that of the Tory party, is not very good. The hon. Gentleman says that, under his preferred system, there would be about 108 MSPs. According to a simple calculator, the figure is 104.26. I would not like to say who the 0.26 would be, but maintaining proportionality would require some 45 additional Members. I do not know where the hon. Gentleman got the figure that he gave.
  Mr. Peter Duncan: There is a straightforward explanation. The fact that Orkney and Shetland are separate constituencies results in a greater proportion of the total number of MSPs.
  Mr. Donohoe: That does not add up. There are still four Members coming from somewhere in the system who are unaccounted for.
  I want to simplify the position. I have heard many arguments about what is possible, but I want to concentrate on what is feasible. Something must be put together that will be accepted not just by my colleagues and me, but by the mainstream in the Chamber and outside. I believe that allowing two MSPs per Westminster constituency would simplify everything, although Orkney and Shetland would remain separate. According to my arithmetic there would then be some 118 Members with a first-past-the-post system, if the commission adopted it. I do not want to close any doors in that regard. Then there are the additional Members. If there were 11, with six in one region and five in the other, we could maintain the total of 129, which seems to have been accepted by everyone.
  7.37 pm
  Mr. Robert Syms: I am beginning to feel a little sorry for the Secretary of State, who has had to sit there and be subjected to a barrage from his Back Benchers. Some of my comments may prove to be more supportive of his position than those of many members of the Scottish Labour party—although I hasten to add that I will be joining my colleagues in the Lobby to vote against the Bill.
  In deciding whether to reduce the size of the Scottish Parliament from 129 Members to 108, we must establish whether it would still be able to scrutinise the Executive
  1190
  properly, whether the reduction would increase the value of Ministers to the detriment of both Government and Opposition Back Benchers, and whether—given that the Scottish Parliament is unicameral—it would be able to fulfil its roles adequately. No one has made a case for that so far today. I suspect that whether the Bill proves to be good or bad will depend on the Parliament's output. No doubt, during the Bill's progress, we shall hear more arguments of that kind rather than arguments about electoral systems in general.
  Much of today's debate seems to have been concerned with the additional member system and the list. Many Members representing Scottish constituencies clearly find that system frustrating. That does not surprise me: during the passage of the Scotland Bill I made a number of speeches opposing it. I am a thorough believer in first past the post, for many fundamental reasons. I think that, partly owing to its simplicity but also because of the accountability it involves, it is the best system for the electorate.
  I do not think that a lack of coterminosity matters greatly if there are no list Members. Many other countries manage without coterminous districts, although they use first past the post. Indeed, for more than 70 years Northern Ireland elected Members to this Parliament—the imperial Parliament, as it was then—and Members representing much smaller constituencies to Stormont, both under first past the post. Canadians elect a federal Parliament and state Parliaments. The ridings and the state parliamentary areas are very different, except in the case of Ontario.
  John Robertson: When the Scotland Bill was being put together, coterminosity, in terms of constituencies, was one of the building blocks for the country. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that taking away those building blocks would leave the way open for the disintegration of the Union as we know it?
  Mr. Syms: An argument made by many people when the Scotland Act 1998 was passed was that embedding Scottish representation in the Westminster constituencies would give rather more unity than the alternative system, but my point is that we do not necessarily have to have that system. The confusion is caused by having a list system, where several Members have an interest in lots of constituencies. It is perfectly possible to have different-sized constituencies, under first past the post, and proper parliamentary representation. In English constituencies, it is normal for county councillors to cover more than one parliamentary constituency; it does not make them bad county councillors, nor does it affect representation to this place.
  In federal Parliaments, such as those in Canada and the United States, there are districts of different sizes, with the exception of Ontario. In Australia, Tasmania is the only state where districts are the same size—most others have different systems. In Germany, the Länder have different sized districts and there is AMS at both federal and state level. In the United States of America, which uses a first-past-the-post system, there are some bizarrely designed districts—there are all sorts of different sizes for all sorts of different offices—yet the system works pretty effectively.

  1191
  I do not think that we need to have a fetish about coterminosity, but the electoral system is key. That is why AMS is causing problems north of the border, although, apart from first past the post, no other system would be preferable. However, there is no doubt about the problem and the Secretary of State is correct to look into the systems. There is a first-past-the-post system for Westminster, AMS for the Scottish Parliament and a list system for Europe and we may be moving towards a single transferable vote system for local government, which will cause confusion. The line taken by the Government has helped that confusion; for example, there was no need for them to bring in a list system for the European Parliament. I voted against that, as I preferred a first-past-the-post system.
  The confusion will inevitably give rise to concern, which could lead to lower turnouts, because people will not understand the system. There is a big misconception in the AMS system. The second vote is more important than the first one, as the second vote determines the relative relationship of all the other parties. I was talking to the German ambassador about that point and even he had not realised it, yet under the German system the second vote is important.
  Overall, it seems sensible to hold an independent inquiry into the relative systems, as, if possible, we do not want a proliferation of systems. It would have been better to go back to first past the post, which is a simpler and more accountable system. I do not necessarily believe that everything has to be coterminous; providing that the system is simple, we do not need the same districts for representation—I have given several examples of that.
  On balance, I shall vote with my colleagues for 108 rather than 129, because I do not believe that the arguments have yet been made on scrutiny and on balance between the Executive and Back Benchers or about whether the Scottish Parliament would do a better job. Perhaps those arguments will be made in Committee.
  Some aspects will add a political cost. If there are separate boundaries, we shall have to have separate reviews and separate electoral registers. A dual system will mean costs for local government north of the border and they will fall on the Scottish taxpayer. When Members vote, they should take account of the fact that duplication may have certain costs.
  As many Members want to speak, I shall conclude my remarks.
  7.43 pm
  Mr. John Lyons: The Scottish Affairs Committee took extensive evidence before it published its report. At the outset, may I refute the claim that the reports of the evidence did not match what we had heard? That was not the case. For example, on the 129-Member question, almost everyone who appeared before the Committee—whether from political parties or independent groups—came down in favour of retaining that number.
  The report stated:
  "During its evidence sessions, the Committee was not made aware of any good case for the current number of MSPs to be either reduced or increased. We are satisfied, therefore, that the number of MSPs should remain, for the time being, at 129."
  1192
  That exactly reflects the evidence that was given to the Select Committee.
  What was important for the Committee was not the mechanics of the 129 figure, or the mechanics of coterminosity but whether any changes would hinder or assist the greater involvement of the electorate. Would the changes be voter friendly? Would they clarify issues for the electorate or would they confuse the electorate even further?
  The hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) has made a consistent point throughout the debate. He has asked whether our constituents tell us that they are worried about coterminosity and the answer is that they do not. However, in Strathkelvin and Bearsden, they ask me, "John, why should the town of Kirkintilloch be split in two for the new Westminster constituency, but remain as one for the Scottish Parliament constituency?" That is how they ask questions about coterminosity. They ask, "Why should the villages of Lennoxtown, Milton of Campsie or Twechar be taken away from the Westminster constituency but remain in the Scottish constituency?".
  Technically, those are arguments about coterminosity. That actual question is never asked, but people—quite properly—are interested in their local community and its past. For example, Kirkintilloch has never been split in its parliamentary history, but now it is being split for the Westminster constituency, while remaining whole for the Scottish Parliament. I agree that people do not say, "What about coterminosity?", but they ask pertinent and important questions about how their local communities are represented.
  In its evidence to the Select Committee, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities said:
  "The creation of 59 Westminster Constituencies which do not have coterminous boundaries with 73 Scottish Parliament constituencies is likely to cause confusion among constituents who will be in different constituencies."
  No one will argue with that. There seems to be broad support for the view that that would be a major difficulty and a major problem.
  Even non-political groups agreed. The Association of Electoral Administrators said:
  "The lack of coincidence between Parliamentary Boundaries in Scotland is more likely to cause bewilderment for electors, especially those who reside in cross-boundary areas."
  That is not a political viewpoint; the association is independent and the administrators are politically objective. They know how to run elections and they clearly say that the lack of coterminosity could cause major problems.
  In its recommendations, the Committee stated:
  "Based on the evidence we have received, we recommend that, in order to avoid possible confusion, the constituency boundaries in Scotland for elections to the United Kingdom and to the Scottish Parliament should remain coterminous."
  The Committee did not reach that conclusion on its own; it was based firmly on the evidence that we heard.
  Another issue that has been raised in the debate was the possibility of two Members from the Scotland Parliament being balanced in a Westminster constituency. The Committee said that
  "our favoured option is to have 2 constituency MSPs for each new Westminster constituency, totalling 118 MSPs, with the remaining 11 MSPs being elected from a national list".

  1193
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) said, the Committee did not recommend how that should be done.
  Mr. Weir: Is that not a difficulty with the report? I was a member of the Committee, and that recommendation did not seem to me to be backed up by the evidence. The report could have made a good point, but it chose to recommend the establishment of a commission and to suggest what it wanted the commission to find—the very thing that the Secretary of State was arguing against.
  Mr. Lyons: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, but the evidence before the Committee was overwhelmingly about the list. People were reasonably satisfied about the possibility that there would be two MSPs in each Westminster constituency; the big and continual criticism was about the list system—for good reason. Questions about the list system have been repeated in the debate today. We have a system for which there is no public support: a candidate can stand for direct election to the Scottish Parliament, come last out of four or five candidates, yet walk into the Scottish Parliament by the back door and take their seat.
  That is clearly unacceptable to the Scottish people; they regard it as a fraud. It does not matter which political party gains by that system, or what it says about it; all of us should be embarrassed about it.
  Mr. Hood: The agriculture Minister of the Scottish Parliament—Captain Mainwaring himself—little Ross Finney, stands for election in Greenock year after year and always gets trounced; indeed, he was trounced in the last two Scottish parliamentary elections. Does my hon. Friend share my amazement at the fact that every morning, the people of Greenock wake up. having trounced Ross Finney, only to find out that he is not only in the Scottish Parliament, but in the Scottish Executive?
  Mr. Lyons: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, because this is clearly a problem. Such people can enter not only the Parliament but the Cabinet. The fact that such things can happen must be an affront to us all, and to the democratic process.
  Angus Robertson: Just to be clear that the hon. Gentleman is not making a cheap partisan point, does he include in his criticism the third place candidate in the Scottish parliamentary elections in Moray, Mr. Peter Peacock? He is now serving as a Scottish Executive Minister, having been defeated as a Labour candidate in Moray by the Scottish National party; indeed, he even came behind the Tories.
  Mr. Lyons: The point that I am making is an apolitical one: the system is not one that the Scottish people agree with. Those who come last in a direct election should not then be able to transfer to the list. If we are to have a list at all, there should be clear separation between those who want to stand in constituencies, and those who want stand in respect of the list.
  I shall give a few facts and figures, which have been provided by the Library. In the 1999 election, 56 list MSPs were elected, 12 of whom were not fighting
  1194
  constituency seats. The remaining 44 had been defeated and then entered Parliament via the list system. We might think that a big enough affront to us all, but let us consider what happened in 2003. Of the 56 list MSPs elected in that year, 44 were losing candidates in constituency seats.
  Pete Wishart: The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way. I understand and appreciate his hostility towards list MSPs, but we have heard it all before, so it is not really new. Can he explain why he wants to have two-Member constituencies? We do not know how they will be elected, except for some vague reference to the Electoral Commission's deciding on such matters. Is it being suggested that the winner and runner-up will be selected for those constituencies? If so, that is a far more ridiculous idea, because whoever is directly defeated—be it by a majority of 800 or 8,000—will get to serve. Such a solution is 10 times worse than that of list Members.
  Mr. Lyons: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands where I am coming from. I want to encourage more people to participate in elections for the Scottish Parliament, for Westminster and for the councils, but the fact is that the list system turns people off. According to the hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams), the Electoral Commission said the following of the question of the percentage:
  "Opinion polling following the 2003 elections in Scotland…suggested that 13 per cent. of non-voters claimed that confusion over the voting systems being used led them not to vote".
  We cannot afford to allow 13 per cent. of that populace to turn away from elections. We need to encourage them, and to try to ensure that they participate in elections in the way that we would like.
  Mr. Weir: I remember what was said well, because I questioned Mr. Younger at the time. The figure of 13 per cent. has gone into legend, but the hon. Gentleman should read on a little further in the report to discover what Mr. Younger said. He said that we should treat that figure with caution, and that
  "there is quite a lot of experience of earlier polling that suggests that some of these reasons are those that people think are the ones which make it look more respectable for their not having voted".
  In other words, he was casting doubt on the robustness of the 13 per cent. figure. On the face of it, that figure is very bad, but perhaps it is not quite as bad as it looks.
  Mr. Lyons: I am happy for any Member to say that they disagree, or that the figure is not robust enough; I am simply quoting the report and the polling organisation. I have no reason to think that the organisation has a jaundiced view of people participating in voting for the Scottish Parliament. I think it objective and fair, and I am prepared to accept its view. One might well argue that 13 per cent. is an underestimate of the number of people who do not vote because of confusion in the system. But as I said, the list system and its lack of accountability undermine the political and democratic process. It helps no politician if people have no trust or faith in it.

  1195
  I am old-fashioned enough to think that you should elect the person whom you want to represent you in the Scottish Parliament. It is as simple as—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The hon. Gentleman is perhaps referring to hon. Members in his use of the second person.
  Mr. Lyons: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. People should have the opportunity to make that decision, which they make on their own. They do not rely on the list system to allow someone to get into the Scottish Parliament through the back door.
  If we were to explain to students of higher modern studies or to first-year politics students that this is the system in the Scottish Parliament—
  Mr. Tynan: Does my hon. Friend agree that those who condemn and deride a system through which those who come first and second in a constituency election are elected to the Scottish Parliament have to examine why it should be that someone who comes fourth in a list system, for example, can be successful?
  Mr. Lyons: I am grateful for that intervention. There is no logic to the case made by those who argue that there is a major problem with the election of those who come first and second, or even with the creation of two separate seats. I am quite happy to go along with the list and all that that means, but the fact that we should have the system in question offends us all as democrats, irrespective of whether Labour, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats or any given party gains.
  The report points one way forward. It is not the solution, but if nothing else it lays a foundation for discussing proposals and recommendations that we can consider in future. That, if nothing else, is a worthy conclusion.
  David Hamilton: It is extremely important that constituents understand who their Member is. First and second past the post is a very important issue. Through such a system, people can say to their Member, "You're to blame for not doing this", or "Thank you for doing that." Under a list system, that does not happen. The former system would provide clarification.
  Mr. Lyons: I am sure that it would. I am clear in my mind that the list is offensive to all democrats, and we should make that point clear.
  7.57 pm
  Mr. Alistair Carmichael: It is a pleasure to participate in this debate, which, as the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) reminded us, is our first opportunity to revisit the Scotland Act 1998 on the Floor of the House. Indeed, it has been a good debate. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) is not in his place, because his was one of the best contributions so far. I did not agree with a lot of it, but he made a powerfully argued and cogent case that demonstrated a certain and welcome independence of mind. I heard him speak on Friday's "Today" programme about the remit of the gas and electricity
  1196
  markets regulator in a similarly independent manner. I never heard him speak in that way when he was Minister with responsibility for energy, but we will leave that to one side for the moment.
  As I said, however, I do not agree with the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North because he seems to be unduly concerned with starting points. He says that we are in a muddled situation. I have no difficulty in agreeing that we are not necessarily in the best starting place, but where we finish is more important than where we start. Once we have been through the Bill, and through the commission process that the Secretary of State said will be introduced soon, we will end up, I hope, where we need to be. Frankly, that is what is important.
  I welcome the retention of the 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament. That is important, not least because it demonstrates to those Members that their views will be listened to here. Had we sought to proceed in open defiance of the clear majority of MSPs, we would have been introducing a constitutional tension into the debate.
  It does not surprise me that the Conservatives are not part of the consensus. They have never been part of any consensus for the development of the constitutional position in Scotland. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) took the best approach that he could have done in the circumstances when he ditched what looked like the last three or four pages of his speech, said that this was a bad Bill, and sat down.
  The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) made a more telling contribution when she outlined all the things that the Conservatives want for the Scottish Parliament: to reduce the number of Members; to reduce the number of Committees; and to reduce the number of Ministers. Everything that the Conservatives propose in the debate, it seems to me, is designed to reduce the effectiveness of the Scottish Parliament. That is no accident: they do not want the Scottish Parliament to succeed and they do not want it to be effective, because they never wanted it in the first place.
  Mr. Peter Duncan: Is the hon. Gentleman absolutely convinced of the need for 22 Ministers to run the Scottish Executive?
  Mr. Carmichael: The number of members of the Scottish Executive or the Cabinet is for the Scottish Parliament to decide, and it will be judged on that basis at the end of the day. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the Conservatives stood for election in May last year on exactly the same set of proposals—to reduce this and reduce that—and were roundly trounced for their pains, so a little more humility from Conservative Front Benchers would not go amiss.
  The question of the coincidence, coterminosity or coterminality—call it what one will—of boundaries is important. Several hon. Members came out with the old saw of asking how often people come to constituency surgeries to talk about coterminosity. Unless one is exceptionally unfortunate in one's constituents, they do not—and long may that continue to be the case. People may not talk about that in surgeries, but they often talk about how the Scottish Parliament operates, and there

  1197
  is a feeling that it does not operate as well, as clearly or as effectively as it might. I believe that the coincidence of boundaries is part of that. As the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) mentioned, the operation of the list system is also part of that, so we are right to deal with those points in the Bill. The Scottish Affairs Committee was right to identify it as a problem, and we need to find the solution to it.
  I explored with the Leader of the House at last Thursday's business questions whether the long title of the Bill could be altered in order to entertain amendments in Committee that would examine those issues, because the Bill is narrowly and tightly drawn. I have to say that the Secretary of State's announcement about the commission today would make that unnecessary—indeed, even unhelpful. The commission is important and I certainly hope that my party will play an active and full part in it.
  My other concern is the movement that I detect among some Labour Members—overtly among Conservative Members—away from proportionality. I believe that proportionality was crucial in selling the Scottish Parliament to the Scottish people. I say that because it was long held in many parts of the country—particularly in the highlands and islands and the borders—that, as my predecessor but one, the late Lord Grimond of Firth once put it, we do not want to be ruled by Glasgow trade unionists and Edinburgh lawyers. He said that, unfortunately, in 1983 when he was speaking in support of my colleague, Jim Wallace, who was then seeking to take over the seat. He was an Edinburgh lawyer, so it was not perhaps the most helpful intervention in the debate. but it does not seem to have done any lasting damage.
  I say in all seriousness that proportionality in the Scottish Parliament means that we must not end up being, to use another expression, the Strathclyde region writ large. That is of supreme importance and any move away from proportionality must be deprecated. It is certainly something that my constituents and I would not countenance supporting. That is why I could not go along with the suggestion in the Scottish Affairs Committee report of having two Members in the Scottish Parliament for each Westminster constituency. Inevitably, in my view, that would have led to the end of proportionality.
  Mr. Tynan: The hon. Gentleman is deluding himself. I believe that the Scottish electorate is more interested in the delivery of the Scottish Parliament and what it can provide in the way of better governance for the people of Scotland. It is not merely a question of proportional representation.
  Mr. Carmichael: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. but his view does not concur with what I find in my constituency. My constituents would feel that a Scottish Executive and Parliament dominated by the central belt—and by the party of the central belt that would inevitably follow from first past the post—would, almost by definition, be deficient in its representation of their interests.
  David Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman take into account the alternative vote system, under which a
  1198
  candidate would require the support of 50 per cent. of the electorate in any constituency? In those circumstances, there would be a mandate by a majority decision.
  Mr. Carmichael: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I believe that AV is preferable to a first-past-the-post system. My concerns remain, however, that in the end it does not produce a Parliament that is truly proportional. As with first past the post, there is a bigger element of accident and happenstance. It could be more proportional, but it almost certainly would not be. In order to secure a more proportional system, one needs larger constituency sizes. That is the fundamental difficulty with the hon. Gentleman's point.
  Rosemary McKenna: I agree that the element of proportional representation was an important part of persuading people, particularly in the periphery of Scotland, to vote in favour of having a Scottish Parliament. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that removing proportionality now would be viewed as a very cynical exercise?
  Mr. Carmichael: Cynical is putting it mildly. It would perhaps be kind to say that about it. I believe that with the passage of time and after learning from experience, we sometimes forget the importance of proportionality as part of the overall constitutional convention programme. What I am trying to achieve tonight is firmly to put that element back into the debate because it is so important. We should remember why we took certain decisions in the first place.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: I do not seek to upset either way the proportional element in the current arrangements, but could the hon. Gentleman explain how having four regions using proportional representaiton for members of Parliament across the central belt reduces the dominance of the central belt on the proceedings of the Scottish Parliament?
  Mr. Carmichael: No, I cannot because I have no idea what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. I just do not understand his logic at all. If this does not help him, he can try to intervene again of course, but I am trying to explain that the majority of people in Scotland—or certainly the largest element of people in Scotland—live in the central belt, which is why the majority of first-past-the-post seats are there, and that that tends to deliver a dominance under the first-past-the-post system.
  Mr. Wilson: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. I think that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) makes a perfectly valid point because proportional representation as expressed through the Scottish Parliament does not reduce the dominance of the central belt—what it does is make political representation in the central belt more diffuse—but I, for one, having some interest in highlands and islands affairs, would seriously question whether the net effect is beneficial to the highlands and islands.
  Mr. Carmichael: Ah, well, I can understand the point when the hon. Gentleman puts it like that—I think that

  1199
  we speak the same language. The danger is that we think of the central belt as a unified lump. Of course it is not; there is a diversity of opinion in the central belt, as there is throughout the highlands and islands as well. The fact that, under the first-past-the-post system, the central belt tends to return a preponderance of Labour MPs lies at the heart of the suspicion that exists in other more peripheral parts. It can be argued that things can be done differently or better, but that suspicion will not be overcome by diverting from the proportionality of the Parliament.
  I broadly welcome the commission that the Secretary of State has proposed today. It is a worthy successor to the constitutional convention. It will advance the debate in the spirit and manner in which the constitutional convention was conducted. First, I hope that we will be able to keep the Conservatives and the Scottish nationalists on board because they are an important part of the process. Secondly, I should be interested to hear from the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland what role she envisages for the wider civic Scotland, because the remarkable success of the Scottish Constitutional Convention was shown in the manner in which it managed to include the Churches, the trade unions and other civic bodies. I hope that some of that spirit can be recaptured in the right hon. Gentleman's commission.
  I wish to try to swim against the tide of the debate by briefly saying something about the Bill itself. I felt originally that the manner in which the Bill was drafted was tight and restrictive. I am very pleased that the commission will allow a wider debate to take place, perhaps outwith the Chamber, because politics does not begin and end at the doors at either end of the Chamber; there is a wider political debate to be had outwith. For that reason and with the assurances provided by the commission, I shall be pleased, along with my Liberal Democrat colleagues, to join the Government in the Lobby to support the Bill tonight.
  8.13 pm
  Rosemary McKenna: I align myself with the remarks about the Bill made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael). The Bill, allied to the Secretary of State's statement on the commission, is exactly the outcome that I had hoped for, and it is exactly what the people of Scotland will welcome. I welcome the announcement on the commission's remit, particularly the reference to the four different types of voting systems that will be possible in Scotland under local government legislation. People will want to look at that very carefully, and there will be an opportunity to do so, given the commission's remit. I look forward to hearing the announcement about the commission's membership and about when it will start and when it will report.
  The Secretary of State also indicated that the remit would include looking at voter participation. That is also important. I am not absolutely certain that the reduction in turnout is caused by the different types of electoral system. Unfortunately, the reduction in turnout is happening all over the world, and we as politicians have to address ourselves to finding out why that is so. Perhaps part of the reason is related to confusion about the voting systems. I am not absolutely convinced about that, but we must find out why that is happening.
  1200
  The Secretary of State also announced that the relationship between public bodies, MPs and MSPs would be considered. Some people appear to think that that will create confusion. I cannot say from my experience that it has caused confusion in my local authority, where the relationship between the local authority, the MP, the MSP, the various public bodies—the health boards and so on—seems to involve a good dialogue. However, those relationships should be looked at if they are an issue in some areas.
  On the representation by different tiers of elected Members, perhaps the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs report on multi-layered democracies could be borne in mind. I shall not quote the report, but I am certain that the Committee was convinced that there was absolutely no problem in working multi-layered democracies and that different levels of representation were perfectly acceptable in those countries in the world where it happens. For example, Germany, France and Spain have different tiers of government and various types of devolution in different areas. I hope that that report will also inform the commission.
  I should like to tell hon. Members about one of my constituents when I was a lowly district councillor and we had several tiers of representation. She came to me to complain about an issue. When I was unable to respond favourably to the complaint, she went to the regional councillor. The regional councillor was unable to solve the problem, so she went to the Member of Parliament. The Member of Parliament was unable to respond to the problem, so she went to the Member of the European Parliament. Ultimately, she insisted that the only way to resolve the problem was to go to Rome, so she promptly took herself off to Rome to find a higher authority. I do not quite know what response she got, but constituents are well able to find out where to get the right answer to their problems.
  No one thinks that the voting method for the Scottish Parliament is wonderful, but we must remind ourselves why we are where we are. The Scotland Act 1998 was taken almost entirely from the constitutional convention. While some did not expect the similarity to be so close, it turned out to be very close because it was created by consensus. That consensus was important because it ensured the inclusion in the Labour party general election manifesto of the proposal to legislate for a Scottish Parliament, after a referendum, in two years. The consensus was also important in ensuring a massive majority in favour of the Parliament in the referendum. I agree completely with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, who said that that was an important part of achieving that consensus not only in the central belt, but around the periphery in Scotland.
  Everyone obviously agrees about keeping the number of MSPs at 129, but let us not forget for a minute that the Conservatives say in their amendment that they want to
  "address the proliferation of politicians in Scotland."
  May I remind them that in 1996 there were more politicians in Scotland than there are at the moment? In 1996, the Conservative local government reform removed more politicians than the Conservatives suggest in their amendment. I am not exactly sure of the numbers, but about 400 councillors were lost to the Scottish electorate.

  1201
  Their proposal is now to take away 20 or so MPs, but they take us nowhere near the reduction that took place then. However, they are consistent. The proposal has nothing to do with the Scottish Parliament; it is just about reducing people's ability to be represented by whom they want under system that allows for far greater representation.
  Mr. Peter Duncan: Our beliefs are consistent, and the hon. Lady will accept that they are consistent with our view that small government is better for the Scottish people. That is why we believe that we need a smaller Scottish Parliament and that the same agenda can be delivered by 108 rather than 129 Members.
  Rosemary McKenna: The Conservatives certainly had small government when they had four Ministers running the then Scottish Office in the run-up to the 1997 general election and in the preceding 18 years. They performed no great service to the people of Scotland and that is why the Conservatives lost so resoundingly in 1997 and ended up without a single Member of Parliament. Unfortunately, small government did not work then.
  We have to consider the boundaries, but I do not think that they matter all that much—certainly not in the short term. People quickly get to know their parliamentarian or councillor; they can certainly find out who they are by visiting the local library. I would like to think that everybody knows who is their Member of Parliament, who is their local councillor or who is their MSP. However, that is not the case. Not as many people as we think know who we are.
  David Hamilton: They do in Midlothian.
  Rosemary McKenna: Apart from in Midlothian, where my hon. Friend insists that every member of the electorate knows him. However, as long as the proposals are based on local government boundaries—which they are—we do not have anything to worry about.
  The fact that a commission is being set up is important. I hope that it will allow for representations from all civic Scotland. People feel that they played a part in setting up the Scottish Parliament and it is important that they feel a part of amending it. I hope that the trade unions, the churches and local government will all be included in the consultation process and have an opportunity to express their views.
  Let us never forget that the Scottish Labour party gave Scotland the Parliament that the people wanted and had asked for. The Scottish Labour party created it. One of the most important elements of proportional representation is that it allowed us to have a better gender-balanced Parliament than almost any Parliament in the world. The Liberal Democrats could have made the position even better if they had kept to their original agreement when they said that they would have a gender-balanced list. Unfortunately, they did not have such a list and the Labour party was the only party to present one. However, the pressure and impetus that that created meant that there were more women in the Scottish Parliament than in any other legislature. I know that some of my colleagues may not agree with that, but that was a great step forward even though the nationalists and the Tories did not take part.
  Mr. Hood: Not only do I agree with my hon. Friend, but I want to help to get more women into the Scottish Parliament. Perhaps she will consider supporting an amendment in Committee to have two Members for each constituency. We could have one woman and one man and that would improve the gender balance throughout Scotland. As she says, the other political parties have not responded, but the Labour party has. Such an amendment would be an excellent idea in achieving a better gender balance.
  Rosemary McKenna: I cannot support two Members for each constituency simply because that removes any element of proportionality. There is not a Parliament or a legislature in the world that would be created today in which one would have a first-past-the-post system. We live in a democracy, and we understand that democracy is not delivered by a first-past-the-post system. I am not talking about changing existing systems; I am talking about the system that we created for the Parliament in Scotland.
  Like everyone else, I and my Member of the Scottish Parliament were followed about by a list MSP—
  Mr. Russell Brown: You were being stalked.
  Rosemary McKenna: I was not being stalked. The list MSP spent the entire proceeds of his advertising budget and was in my constituency nearly all the time, but we beat him in the election. We beat such people politically, and I hope that we shall continue to do that.
  Mr. Brown: As I said to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I had to leave earlier to attend another meeting, but I am sure that people have expressed grave concerns throughout the debate about list Members who seem to float around the system. Some land on a specific patch and concentrate on that. However, an even greater issue is now beginning to surface. List Members of the Scottish Parliament are being selected for the next election and they go around the patch in some form of legitimate fashion saying that they are still Members of the Scottish Parliament, which they are. However, they are doing nothing more than campaigning for the next general election with the taxpayers picking up the cost.
  Rosemary McKenna: My hon. Friend has just demonstrated that the issue is about politicians. The subject is not discussed in the pubs and clubs in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth. Constituents have yet to come to me and say that they wish to make a complaint. However, if we try to impose change without proper consultation, the issue will be quickly raised. I worked with the convention through my involvement with local government and I am certain that the whole issue of proportionality was crucial in helping us to deliver the Scottish Parliament. I agree that the system is not perfect, but it is not worrying people in our constituencies. I have always supported proportional representation and nothing that has happened has persuaded me otherwise.
  Mr. Tynan: My hon. Friend referred to the list candidate for the Scottish Parliament for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth. The way to defeat such individuals is by working hard and making sure that we beat them at the

  1203
  poll. Does she accept that that person is not in the Scottish Parliament because the Scottish National party put him so far down the list that he could not win a seat?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are going a little wide of the debate.
  Rosemary McKenna: My hon. Friend again demonstrates that this is a matter that politicians talk about. It is not discussed in our constituencies. People quickly suss out what is happening. I repeat that we defeat such candidates politically and not by complaining about the system
  I welcome the fact that the commission will have an opportunity to consider these issues. I am sure that many people will wish to give evidence and to express their views. I suspect that civic Scotland wants a proportional system that delivers a Parliament that reflects society. A first-past-the-post system does not deliver a Parliament that reflects society or gives the views of the people due credence. Every vote must matter, and a system of proportional representation is the one to do that.
  Mrs. Irene Adams: Does my hon. Friend agree that every vote does not matter at the moment? In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), 77,000 votes were cast for the Labour party list but not one member was elected. However, someone from a minority party who received 10,000 votes was elected.
  Rosemary McKenna: The votes are cumulative. Under the current system, a Labour Member has no hope of getting elected in the constituency of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), but there is hope under proportional representation.
  The Scottish Parliament is settling down, and recent opinion polls show a great deal of support for it and its achievements. Given the views expressed today, I hope that a consensus is reached, but I do not envy the work of the commission. How on earth can consensus be achieved? I wish the Secretary of State luck.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Alan Reid: I welcome the Bill, which will keep 129 MSPs in the Scottish Parliament, although I wish that it were much better. I also wish that the Bill were more wide ranging and that we could table amendments to it relating to different electoral systems. I also welcome the Secretary of State's announcement of a commission to consider changes to the electoral system for the Scottish Parliament.
  Despite welcoming both the Bill, which keeps 129 MSPs, and the commission, which will review the electoral system, I regret the sequence of events that has taken us to this situation at this time. The commission should have been set up one year ago, when the Secretary of State's predecessor made her statement in the House in December 2002. The commission should have started its work after the 2003 Scottish parliamentary elections, because at that point we had seen the electoral system work for a full Parliament and had been through two elections. If the commission had been set up then, we could have discussed its recommendations in this debate.
  Mr. Peter Duncan: The hon. Gentleman suggests that the commission should have been set up a year ago when
  1204
  the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell), made the announcement. Does he not take on board the powerful point made by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) that the commission is being set up to deal with a problem that has not yet occurred? If the commission had been set up then, the problem would have been one year away. The problem of coterminousity and lack of boundary consistency is not yet there to deal with. Why should the commission have been set up one year ago?
  Mr. Reid: When we envisage a problem, we should take steps to stop it arising. If I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, he wants to wait until we have a problem, and only then take steps to deal with it.
  The Scottish Parliament has undoubtedly been successful—we have a consensus on that point and no party wants to abolish it. It has passed many Bills because we needed to catch up. For many years, there had not been parliamentary time at Westminster to pass the number of the Bills required in Scotland to keep Scots law up to date.
  When considering the numbers, it is important to remember that the Scottish Parliament is a single chamber. Earlier, Conservative Members were calculating the number of elected politicians in Scotland and comparing that figure with England. However, they all failed to take into account the many unelected politicians in Westminster in the House of Lords. The number of people scrutinising legislation in Westminster is far greater than the number of MPs alone.
  Mr. Carmichael: On the subject of the large number of unelected members in the other place, does it strike my hon. Friend as strange that Conservative Members' enthusiasm for reducing the number of politicians never extends to that end of the budding?
  Mr. Reid: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which I wholeheartedly endorse.
  Since the Scottish Parliament has a single chamber, its Committees play an important role both in scrutinising the Executive and in improving the quality of legislation. The Committees already have a full work load, and a cut in the number of MSPs would either greatly increase that, or reduce the effectiveness of the Committees. The recent Scotland Office consultation on whether the current number of MSPs should be retained also came out heavily in favour of keeping the number at 129.
  I welcome the Government's decision to introduce the Bill rather than allowing the Scotland Act 1998 to reduce the number of MSPs to 106 at the 2007 election. However, I agree with the hon. Members who say that the Government's method, if it is ever implemented, will lead to confusion. It will have an impact only at the 2007 election, and if, as the Secretary of State has promised, the commission proceeds speedily, the Government and Parliament could have accepted its recommendations before the 2007 election. The legislation that we pass tonight may never come into effect, because it will be overtaken by events.
  I also agree with many of the comments about the list system. Although constituents do not use the word "coterminousity" when they discuss the issue, as hon.

  1205
  Members have pointed out, they raise the subject in other ways. Obviously, my constituency and the Scottish Parliament constituency currently share the same boundaries and the same name—Argyll and Bute. However, Argyll and Bute council covers a larger area than my constituency. The current parliamentary boundaries were drawn up under the previous local government boundaries, and follow the former local government district of Argyll and Bute, which was abolished in 1996.
  If the Bill has its full effect and is not overtaken by the commission, the current Scottish Parliament constituency of Argyll and Bute will survive until 2011, despite being based on the boundary of a district council that was abolished in 1996. It is difficult to explain that situation to my constituents. Because the constituency boundary does not follow the council boundary, I spend a great deal of time explaining to constituents that my constituency does not cover the whole of Argyll and Bute and that people who live in the parts of Argyll and Bute council area that are not covered by the Argyll and Bute constituency are represented by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall).
  Mr. Weir: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that that will be the case in many situations? There are parts of three different local authorities in my constituency; under the new scheme. the new Angus constituency will not cover the whole of Angus, parts of which will go into two Dundee seats. The same problems will occur whatever system is selected.
  Mr. Reid: There will certainly be an element of confusion, but it does not need to be this confusing. For example, the two Aberdeen, Norths and two Aberdeen, Souths will follow different boundaries, as will the two Dundee, Easts and the two Dundee, Wests. That is a recipe for total confusion.
  The election of the Parliament on a proportional basis has been a proven success—and I say that as a member of a party that has derived little benefit from the top-up lists. They have produced only four Liberal Democrat MSPs compared with 13 elected in the constituencies. The main beneficiaries of the top-up lists have been not the Liberal Democrats but the Scottish National party and the Tories, but it is only right for SNP and Tory voters to have fair representation in the Scottish Parliament.
  List MSPs do not have a properly defined role. They invariably cherry-pick, either by concentrating all their efforts on one constituency and setting themselves up as shadow constituency MSPs, or by taking up issues that provide them with a public profile, leaving constituency MSPs to do the less high-profile casework on behalf of individual constituents.
  One unexpected outcome of the top-up list system has been that because the party that gains the most votes inevitably wins more than its fair share of constituency seats, and because most of the top-up list seats therefore go to the smaller parties, the bulk of the Ministers are drawn from the constituency MSPs. That leaves the list MSPs with little to do. The constituency MSPs have all
  1206
  the constituency work to do and make up the vast majority of Ministers. That was an unforeseen effect, but now that we can see the system in operation, we can see that as one reason for changing it.
  I hope that the commission's remit will allow it to consider only proportional systems. It should choose a system under which all MSPs are elected using the same method, and avoid having two separate categories of MSP as we have at the moment. The obvious choice is the single transferable vote—STV—system. That could be implemented by pairing new Westminster constituencies, each pair to form a multi-Member constituency for the Scottish Parliament. Each of those multi-Member constituencies could then elect four or five MSPs.
  That would mean that all MSPs were on the same footing and, importantly, that the voters would decide who was elected from each party—unlike the present list system, where the party members effectively decide who is elected by determining the order of the names on the lists. The STV system would also have the advantage that Scottish Parliament and local council elections held on the same day could be held using the same voting system. I hope that the commission will recommend STV.
  I shall vote to give the Bill a Second Reading because it keeps the Parliament at 129 Members, but I regret that the Government have framed it so tightly that it excludes consideration of alternative electoral systems.
  8.41 pm
  Mr. Bill Tynan: At this time of night it is often difficult to find something new to say, but I shall try my best. I can understand why Opposition Members want to pursue a PR system, which is in their interests, but as a Labour Member I take the view that if we are winning, I want to continue to win and to deliver for the people whom I represent. That is a clear difference between Opposition Members and me.
  This could be a debate for anoraks, looking at different systems and discussing which way to go. So far as I can see, it is a debate for the chattering classes. I think that there was a demand for a Scottish Parliament because the people in Scotland were so fed up with voting constantly for a Labour Government and losing during the 18 years of Conservative rule, and of seeing the damage that the Conservatives did to ordinary people in Scotland, that they gave up and decided, "We're never going to win a general election, so let's have a Scottish Parliament. Let's have something new that will protect the people of Scotland." That is one reason why civil society and members of the Labour party were at one in trying to establish a Scottish Parliament.
  I welcome what the Secretary of State has said today, but, as he said, we have to look at the system and at the issues that the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs has raised. I commend the Committee for its report, which covers several issues very well. When it was published on 3 February there was much interest in it, especially in view of today's debate. The report's third recommendation is that the commission should start work as soon as possible and that whatever it recommends should be implemented, through this Parliament, in time for the 2007 election. We should adopt that recommendation. I am delighted, as were the

  1207
  majority of the members of the Committee, with its work. Its findings will allow the Secretary of State—and, I am now told, the First Minister—to implement the commission's decisions through this Parliament.
  However, I have a confession to make. I was a list member in 1999, when the Labour party placed me first in the list for Central Scotland. I was lucky—I escaped and am here instead of in the Scottish Parliament. When I was standing. I could not campaign, because we were concentrating on the first-past-the-post candidate in the constituency2014;and, I am delighted to say, we were successful in securing his election.
  The literature that we produced for the electorate targeted the first-past-the-post seat and did not target the list candidate. There were eight of us on the list, which was sent to constituents, who then had to make a decision. The Labour party achieved 130,000 votes that evening, and the Member who was elected to the Scottish Parliament won 17,000 votes. I have always thought that the list system was unfair—I am not just saying so because I was a list member. However, my experience demonstrated graphically that it was certainly not the way in which we should proceed.
  The explanatory notes to the Bill say:
  "The Scotland Act 1998 provides for the constituencies of the Scottish Parliament to be the same as those for the United Kingdom Parliament, except…Orkney and Shetland."
  They continue:
  "There are currently 73 constituency Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) and 56 regional list MSPs. The Act also provides that the Boundary Commission for Scotland when reviewing the Westminster constituencies should use the same (larger) electoral quota as used in England. This is likely to reduce…to 59."
  The Minister should take note of the fact that the boundary commission is currently examining the English constituencies for numbers. If we are going to apply the Scottish parliamentary model to Westminster it is likely that there will shortly be another reduction in the number of MPs representing Scotland. It would be better to introduce proposals to reduce the number of Scottish MPs when proposed boundary changes are made in England, Wales and Scotland. There are now 129 MSPs, but we are reducing the number of MPs from Scotland. I believe that change should have been effected on a broader basis.
  As politicians, we should look at the genuine opportunity presented by our debate. If we are to improve government structures we should do so not on the basis of whether there are 59 MPs or 129 MSPs, but on the basis of how best to deliver for the people whom we represent. The Scottish people were excited about the Scottish Parliament, and may have had huge expectations about what it could deliver. To some extent, they have been disappointed—even the First Minister has said so. However, the Scottish Parliament will grow and deliver for the people of Scotland. It will settle down and take the direction that it should have taken originally, and I am delighted that we set it up.
  Participation and the involvement of the people are crucial. I do not believe the electorate are interested in the numbers, whether they are 59 or 129. They are interested in what we can deliver. When I was doing research for our debate I came across a press release:
  "A Gallup survey …last week painted a very depressing picture of the way people in Britain today feel about their country and its institutions. It revealed a significant and worrying loss of
  1208
  confidence in Parliament, in our justice system, and in the way the country is governed. Only a tiny number of those questioned believed…that Britain is a country at ease with itself.
  I have no hesitation in saying there is an undeniable and pressing need for constitutional reform in this country. Undeniable because—as I hope to demonstrate—our structures and institutions are clearly failing properly to represent the people they were set in place to serve. And pressing because of the mounting sense of disenchantment and cynicism amongst the people of this country about our political system, a deeply disturbing trend that must be checked if we are to secure the future health of our democracy."
  That was part of a speech by John Smith in 1993. He believed that establishing a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Parliament was the way forward.
  I would question whether we have been successful. Do the same problems still exist even with the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly in place? It is important that we examine not only structures but what we are doing as politicians to create the impetus for people to be involved in the political process. At the last Scottish parliamentary election in my constituency, 46 per cent. of the electorate turned out. That must be of concern to every Member in this place and to every politician in Scotland.
  Angus Robertson: I wish to understand the hon. Gentleman's train of thought a little better. He has talked about ways of galvanising the electorate to help deliver aspirations in the run-up to the Scottish Parliament elections. Does he share the view of the majority expressed in an opinion poll last week for The Herald, which indicated that an overwhelming number of people in Scotland want to see greater power exercised by the Scottish Parliament?
  Mr. Tynan: Out of the consensus of the Scottish Constitutional Convention came the opportunity for consensus and the establishment of the Scottish Parliament. The SNP had no part in that consensus. It is regrettable that it did not take the opportunity to be involved. I understand that Sir David Steel is asking for another convention to be set up. I understand also that the leaders of the SNP are now saying, "Let's go for it." Obviously, their intention is to try to achieve more power for the Scottish Parliament. If we are talking about bedding down a Parliament and retaining 129 Members to see how it goes by allowing the parliament time, that should be our approach to the entire process. We should take our time and then decide what is necessary.
  We should carefully consider where we are on these matters. I shall vote with the Government, but I hope that the opportunity will arise in Committee for us to be involved in discussions and amendments to improve the Bill. That will be essential. I recognise that we have some serious problems. I also recognise that we must deal with the issues that are before us. I believe that the Bill needs amendment, and I look forward to that process.
  8.53 pm
  Mr. Andrew Turner: I sympathise with the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) in the effect of the different electoral systems on his political fortunes. I am sure that he would agree that he is better off as a Member of this place than as a list Member of the Scottish Parliament.

  1209
  I do not feel strongly about all of the Bill, and neither do my constituents. However, there are aspects of it about which they feel particularly strongly, and I wish to represent them on those points.
  First, I wish to address a remark that was made earlier, which was that the constitutional settlement in Scotland was a done deal. The hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) suggested that we were in danger of unpicking the devolution settlement. The Bill certainly attempts to unpick that settlement—let there be no doubt about that. As the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) said, one of the aspects of the settlement was the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament, and that is being unpicked by the Bill.
  The Secretary of State used the word "consensus" twice. I picked him up on that, but I never received an answer, so I repeat my point so that the Under-Secretary can reply later. The first time the right hon. Gentleman referred to a consensus, and the second time to a consensus in Scotland with regard to the future of the 129 MSPs. When I challenged him he said that a consensus is what is arrived at in this House. On that basis, we have a consensus on foundation hospitals and on tuition fees. I do not think that that is a very good description of a consensus. The description in the Scottish Constitutional Convention referred to by the hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams), albeit not a consensus to which I would have subscribed had I lived in Scotland at the time, was a much better description of a consensus than that furnished by the right hon. Gentleman.
  There is a great concern—if one reads the Select Committee's report carefully it is even easier to feel such concern—that the Bill is a Trojan horse to retain the number of MSPs and, subsequently, use that as an excuse for retaining the number of Scottish Members of this House. I was glad to hear the Secretary of State come near to denying that that was his intention, but that was certainly the recommendation, as I read it. If one retains the number of MSPs and coterminosity, the only consequence can be to retain the number of Scottish Members of this House, and that, it appeared to me, is what the report was recommending.
  Mrs. Irene Adams: The report recommended that the Westminster Members be reduced in number, but that the commission to be set up should find a way of making coterminous boundaries with the 129 at Edinburgh and the 59 at Westminster.
  Mr. Turner: I thank the hon. Lady for that explanation. I shall have to think rather more carefully about how such a commission will be able to do that, but I am grateful for her guarantee on that.
  The best argument in favour of the retention of coterminosity was that put forward by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson)—it is that of confusion. That was repeated by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid). He made a long speech, much of which I agreed with. He announced at the end that he would vote for the Bill, which I found rather curious, but he repeated the point made by the hon.
  1210
  Member for Cunninghame, North. I checked, and 21 constituencies would have the same name but different boundaries were the Bill to be enacted, and one constituency would have the same boundaries but a different name.
  Mr. Alan Reid: A lot will arise from the Bill with which I disagree, but I will support it tonight because it will result in a better situation than would be the case without it. The important thing is to keep the number of MSPs at 129, which a unicameral Parliament and a strong Committee system requires.
  Mr. Turner: I understand the hon. Gentleman's motivation in voting for the Bill; it is to maintain the present number of MSPs. I do not agree with it, but I understand his motivation for it. Incidentally, it was 20 constituencies, not 21—I apologise to the House. But I see no magic in the 129 figure, and so far no one has been able to explain it to me. I accept that the Scottish Parliament is unicameral and that it has a strong Committee system, but it has less to do than the Westminster Parliament has to do for England. Yet it seems to be necessary for Scotland to have five times the representation in one Parliament or another that my constituents have, and I simply do not understand that. That is the point that is talked about in the pubs and clubs on the Isle of Wight. It is not coterminosity that is talked about; it is the position of Scottish electors compared with that of English electors, and, most particularly, English electors who happen to live in the Isle of Wight.
  Mrs. Irene Adams: The hon. Gentleman is clearly talking once again about the West Lothian question, but what he seems to have failed to understand throughout the years of debate is that that question was never one for the people of Scotland. Rather, it was a question for the people of England and a question of how they addressed their home affairs. If they chose to address them in this Parliament, it would be as part of a UK Parliament. If they chose not to do so, they would need regional assemblies to address those problems.
  Mr. Turner: There is more than one way of skinning a cat. The method that I think most of my constituents would prefer is one whereby English Members of this Parliament deal with English matters. I can see absolutely no objection to that argument. I do not understand—
  Mr. Mark Lazarowicz rose
  Mr. Turner: Doubtless the hon. Gentleman will tell me why Labour Members find that proposition so offensive.
  Mr. Lazarowicz: I am intrigued by the idea of pubs and clubs in the Isle of Wight tuning their TVs to the Parliament channel as we discuss the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that one answer to his dilemma is the establishment of a powerful regional assembly covering his part of the country. I understand that he is against that proposal, but whatever the degree of criticism that

  1211
  has now crept in about the Scottish Parliament, the degree of public support for it shown in the opinion polls is higher than for the Westminster Parliament.
  Mr. Turner: That might well be true, but it is the case because Scotland has an identity as a nation, whereas I doubt that the hon. Gentleman could even say in which region my constituency lies, and neither could most of my constituents. They do not identify with the so-called regions of England and they do not wish to have a regional parliament or assembly, whether it is in Guildford, Woking or Milton Keynes. That is not something that they want or that should be imposed on them. I am glad that there will be a referendum if there is any proposal that such an assembly should be established, as I am sure that we will vote against it.
  The point is that, at the moment, hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent English constituencies are covering a range of activities. I am fortunate because I represent more than 100,000 people; indeed, I believe that I am unique in that respect in this Parliament. We cover a range of responsibilities, whether they relate to England or the UK, and we accept that it is for the Scots to have a Scottish Parliament if they choose and that it is for them to decide to have five Members of one Parliament or another for every one Member of one Parliament or another who represents the Isle of Wight. That is their decision, but we do not understand why Scottish MPs seem to object to English matters being dealt with by English Members of this House. I am not talking about banishing them from having any say in United Kingdom affairs—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. In debating the Bill, we are discussing the number of constituencies, rather than responsibilities.
  Mr. Turner: I accept that entirely, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I want now to talk about one aspect of representation of those constituencies. The Secretary of State represents in the Cabinet not only Scotland, but transport. My constituents would like him to explain why, as Secretary of State for Scotland, he can decide with the support of Members of Parliament from England, Scotland, and Wales and Northern Ireland for that matter, that no subsidies should be given to the ferries that ply across the Solent to my constituency—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Again, that is outside the scope of this debate.
  Mr. Turner: I was about to say that that is happening while 129 Scottish Members can decide what subsidies are given to the ferries that ply their way to the Scottish islands.
  Mr. Hood: I shall try to rescue the hon. Gentleman and bring him back to the subject of the debate. Does he understand that he will be going into the Lobby this evening to vote on a Bill that is applicable only to Scotland, and not to England or Wales? If he thinks that that is okay—and I think it is okay—why was he criticising Scottish MPs for doing the same thing a fortnight ago?
  Mr. Turner: I will vote on the Bill because it is a United Kingdom measure. Nobody has tried to argue
  1212
  that the Bill is not a UK measure, whereas many people—particularly residents of the Isle of Wight—argue that ferry subsidies to the Isle of Wight is not a Scottish measure and that Scottish MPs should not be entitled to vote upon it. I see that you are keen that I should not go too much further down that road, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will not.
  There is one other point that I should like to make about the value or otherwise of MSPs. I understand that the average cost of an MSP is£317,317 per annum, while the average running cost per member of this Parliament is a mere £5,000 more, yet there are so many more MSPs per Scottish elector than there are Members of the UK Parliament per UK elector. I accept that we have peers as well, but most are very cheap; some of them come free. We get good value from the other place, we get good value from this place, but we get exceptionally poor value from MSPs.
  Mr. Salmond: Is the hon. Gentleman's supreme constitutional point that if MSPs were prepared to accept no salary, he would have no objection to however many of them there were?
  Mr. Turner: It is not, as it happens. It is just—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have previously reminded the hon. Gentleman of the scope of the debate. I do so once more; perhaps he will now refer to the content of the Bill and the debate.
  Mr. Turner: My point was that the number of Members of this Parliament per elector produced better value than the number of electors proposed by the Bill per MSP. It is not a supreme constitutional issue, but it is an issue with which I would be concerned were I a Scottish elector. I am not a Scottish elector, but I do not feel that that should influence the decision one way or the other.
  When the Government introduce legislation, they should not turn it upside down within three or four years, which is what I object to most about the Bill. The Government do that all the time, of course. They have done it recently, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition remarked at Prime Minister's Question Time last week. It is embarrassing that they do so because it indicates that they have not thought through legislation. Indeed, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South said that we had sleepwalked into this position and that we did not look at the details of the legislation.
  As a result of the Bill, I would like us to decide not to change the current settlement. By making a change, the Government are accepting that it is open to us, and to anyone, to propose changes to the settlement. If we are entitled to propose changes to the settlement, we who represent English electors will seek to open the West Lothian question.
  I do not believe that more politicians mean better services. I do not believe that my constituents believe that, and I would be surprised if Scottish constituents believed that. That is why I will vote against the Bill tonight.
  9.8 pm
  John Robertson: I am aware of the time and will do my best to leave sufficient time for the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett).
  In an attempt to stop Members intervening to ask who I have talked to lately, I say that I base my input tonight on the debate that I have had with members of my party and of my electorate and on my experience overall in campaigning, since 1978, for a Scottish Parliament
  The first question I asked myself when I was putting my speech together is, "Why open the Act?" I asked the same question when I made my submission to the previous Secretary of State for Scotland.
  I have had great difficulty in coming to terms with that, so I have great sympathy with Opposition Members. I could mention private conversations that I had with the late Donald Dewar, but I will not do that—instead, I will quote from what he said at the time, which can be read in Hansard by any Member who wishes to do so. When the House of Lords tabled an amendment on whether 129 MSPs should remain for ever, he said:
  "In the White Paper, we made it clear that the size of the Scottish Parliament would change to take account of changes at Westminster so as to maintain common boundaries.
  I should reassure the House that the Government have thought long and hard about the implications for the Parliament of a reduction in its size. We do not believe that such a reduction will make the Parliament less able to carry out its key roles in scrutinising effectively the Scottish Administration's work and enacting legislation."—[Official Report, 11 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 381.]
  Suddenly, we find that the Government have changed their mind about that. Having said unreservedly that they could conduct business in the Scottish Parliament with fewer than 129 MSPs, we now find ourselves faced with a fait accompli, which, regretfully, I shall have to go along with. That does not mean that I am fully minded to walk through the Lobby with my party tonight—I have still to make that final decision. I will not vote with the Opposition, however: I could never walk through the Lobby with the Conservatives, and my father would turn in his grave if I did so.
  Mr. Peter Duncan: I am sorry to point out something that might be too difficult for the hon. Gentleman to contemplate, but to assist him in his dilemma, I remind him that in the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs he voted with me in order to implement the Scotland Act 1998. I wonder whether he could consider doing so tonight.
  John Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. I do not know how he conducts his business in Select Committee, but I take the view that I am there to represent the whole House, so I do not consider issues along party political lines, and vote as such. Obviously, other Members do not do the same.
  If we are going to pass the Bill—as we obviously are, because the vote of one Member from Glasgow, Anniesland will not make a big difference—it is regrettable that it was not undertaken properly. As many Members said, there is a great deal in the 1998 Act that needs to be sorted. My right hon. Friend the
  1214
  Secretary of State talked about the commission. That is a very good idea, and it is an even better idea to bring it forward immediately. When my right hon. Friend was asked when it will be implemented, he did not answer. That is of paramount importance in getting rid of any anomalies that may be in the system before the next Scottish Parliament elections in 2007, which is my No. 1 priority in terms of supporting the Bill in future.
  The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), who unfortunately is not in his place, did little to persuade me to support his party tonight—in fact, the Conservatives seem to be suffering from selective amnesia. In the debate in which the late Donald Dewar spoke, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who is now chairman of the Conservative party, said:
  "The first thing that will be required to make the Scottish Parliament work properly is stability, but what is guaranteed by what he is defending is instability."—[Official Report, 11 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 387.]
  This is a role reversal, because my Government are talking about maintaining 129 MSPs, whereas Conservative Members, who supported that at the time of the 1998 Act, now oppose it.
  One would put that down to political—
  Mr. Hood: Chicanery.
  John Robertson: Self-interest is one term, but chicanery is a good word and I thank my hon. Friend for it.
  The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan), in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams), blamed her for the figure of 129. Again, I revert to what Conservative Members said when the Scotland Act 1998 went through Parliament. They supported that figure; they cannot simply change their minds. They appear to be indulging in very opportunistic politics nowadays. They cannot simply change with the weather: either they have principles or they do not. Someone once said that a Tory cannot eat principles.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) and for Paisley, North stole my thunder and my speech. They have obviously been looking over my shoulder. There is no point in telling hon. Members about the number of voters in Glasgow because everybody now knows. My hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale mentioned the number of list MSPs in his constituency; it was probably fair that he was the first to mention them.
  Why do we need two ballot papers if we have a list system? Why can we not have one ballot paper? The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) described the second vote as natural. Having one ballot paper would change that and the Secretary of State should consider it. At least that would mean that 77,000 ballot papers would not be wasted in Glasgow and we might save one tree in the Amazon, if only for a year.
  We should consider the matter seriously. If 77,000 people go through a ballot paper that is half a mile long and to the trouble of casting their vote only to find that it means nothing, that is not democracy. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) talked about 130,000 votes.

  1215
  Hangers-on and opportunists stand outside my polling stations and tell people, "That's okay, vote Labour. It's your second vote we want. Don't worry about it; you're voting Labour on the first vote, so they won't worry about it." That completely misrepresents the system. I want members of such parties out of the political system because their politics matches their underhandedness.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) made some excellent points. He mentioned people who come to our surgeries and talk about, in effect, coterminosity. They ask, "Who do I go to?" They might want to discuss health and say, "Mr. Robertson, can you help me with this?" I say, "Yes. Give me your case. I'll take it." I forward it to the MSP. Should I forward it to eight MSPs or give it to my hon. Friend the Member of the Scottish Parliament for Glasgow, Anniesland because I know that he will take it up and attend to it properly? The electorate do not understand the difference between a councillor, an MSP and an MP and they do not care. They care about delivery.
  When I stood for Parliament, it was on a Labour party ticket. The ballot paper did not say, "John Robertson, sometimes a member of the Labour party" or "part-time Labour party member". It said "the Labour party", and I am under no illusions: those three words were the only reason that I got elected.
  Mr. Tynan: That is why you will vote with the Government.
  John Robertson: I may have to do that—my hon. Friend talks me into it.
  Proportionality has been mentioned often and I am sure that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West will refer to it. I am sorry but I did not go into politics to worry about proportionality. I entered politics to worry about delivering for the people of Glasgow, Anniesland and this country.
  Mr. Lazarowicz: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  John Robertson: Make it quick.
  Mr. Lazarowicz: Can my hon. Friend tell the House why he was so keen on the Conservatives being able to run this country for 18 years on a minority vote, damaging Scotland in the process? [Interruption.]
  John Robertson: I think that somebody said "Judas" from a sedentary position—[Laughter] My hon. Friend makes a good point, but I do not agree with him, and he knows that.
  I want to mention the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), who has done sterling work throughout the evening for the English national party and has told us many times about his 100,000 electors and how that was the equivalent of four seats in Scotland. It would be only four seats in Scotland, as I have just checked the figures, and those would include Orkney and Shetland, Western Isles—I will not say its real name, as I do not speak Gaelic—and Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. That would take the number to well over 100,000. I do not think that any other Conservative Member has
  1216
  an electorate of that size, so his argument was somewhat disingenuous. I had a bit of sympathy with some of his points until he adopted the English nationalist pose—his party will have to watch that. If the Conservative party wants to be part of the United Kingdom, it must remember that this House represents all the people of this country. It does itself no favours by attacking Scottish Labour Members for voting on legislation that goes through the House.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will return to the main debate.
  John Robertson: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I got carried away with the moment. I shall move on quickly, as I have about three speeches to make. It is terrible because we always leave the best to last—in this case, I am not talking about the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West.
  One of my hon. Friends mentioned a referendum. The legislation was put together on a referendum of the Scottish people. Let us be honest—they did not vote because of the system that would be introduced; they voted with their hearts because it was about getting a Scottish Parliament. We all worked hard and we worked together. The SNP, in my constituency in particular, was of great help during the campaign for a yes, yes vote. I have no doubt that that collaboration helped to make the vote bigger than was expected. At the end of day, however, it is important to me that we should not give away power to another party. My job is to represent the people of Glasgow, Anniesland and to do my best for the people of the United Kingdom, but it is also to represent my party and my party's policies. That is what I want to do, and I do not see why we should give that up to another party, so that, in effect, the tail wags the dog. As far as I am concerned, proportionality should not even be on the agenda.
  9.23 pm
  John Barrett: I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) for not using his last three minutes and allowing me to contribute to the debate at the end of the night.
  There are real problems with the Scottish electoral system. The problem of list MSPs has been highlighted by a number of contributors to the debate. There is also the problem that the electorate are being turned off in droves. Each successive election results in fewer people going to the ballot box. As several Members have said already, however, people are not coming to constituency surgeries raising the issue of coterminosity. People want to see services delivered. When they phone the police by dialling 999, they have no interest in the division from which the police respond. They want a fast and efficient response. If we think that the talk in pubs and clubs around the country is about boundaries, we do so at our peril. What people want to see is a good, effective Scottish Parliament.
  The Scottish Parliament has done a lot of good work in the past five years—I mention just tuition fees and free personal care for the elderly, although I see from some of the press about Mr. Galbraith today, that he does not share my enthusiasm for those policies. The

  1217
  current numerical total in the Scottish Parliament, however, has given it the ability to deal with issues in a way in which this Parliament cannot deal with them. The number 129, which was mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams), is not a magical figure. It was arrived at as a result of discussion and negotiation to make sure that the Scottish Parliament gave the people of Scotland some form of proportionality, so that they received a Parliament that reflected the way in which they voted, and they deserve that.
  If 40 per cent. of people vote for the Government in this Parliament, that gives them a huge majority, although at the last general election the combined votes for the opposition parties exceeded the number of votes for the Labour party by 2 million. The people of Scotland deserve better.
  David Taylor: Can the hon. Gentleman name the last Government who had an absolute majority of votes from the United Kingdom electorate?
  John Barrett: No.
  The Scottish Parliament is unicameral, so the Committee system is more important than it is here. The MSP in my constituency, Margaret Smith, was a convener of the Health Committee for four years, and during that time managed to take a huge amount of evidence, scrutinise legislation and involve the wider community in the workings of the Parliament. The Parliament already has two Justice Committees. Perhaps the biggest fear relating to a reduction in the number of MSPs is of the impact that such a cull would have on the overall effectiveness of the Committee system. For that reason, among others, the Bill should be welcomed.
  Any break in the link between the Scottish Parliament and Westminster boundaries will present challenges, but those challenges will face parliamentary representatives rather than the general public. I do not think that different boundaries are sustainable in the long term, but I do not subscribe to the other view that chaos will reign supreme when the two Parliaments' boundaries no longer match.
  The long-term solution is, of course, a re-examination of the whole way in which the Scottish Parliament is elected. I would also favour a similar review of the way in which we elect Members to this place. I must confess to being very disappointed with the Scottish Affairs Committee's report. When the Committee announced its inquiry into the break in the link between the two sets of boundaries, it had a real opportunity to produce an imaginative and constructive solution. It is unfortunate that it fell short on both counts. It is a shame that Committee members—apart from the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan), whose party did not want any MSPs in the first place—appeared to pander to party political interests in a way that I thought had long since passed.
  Having two MSPs per constituency with a tiny top-up, as the Committee proposed, could and in all likelihood would entirely destroy the proportional
  1218
  system on which the Scottish Parliament is based. Some Members, both here and in the Scottish Parliament, seem to see the wide range of parties and opinions that exists in the Scottish Parliament as its weakness. I prefer to see it as its strength. I may disagree profoundly with the politics of some of the parties in the Scottish Parliament, but that is democracy, and a fair representation of the way in which people in Scotland have voted.
  The theory that the Scottish Parliament's standing will be enhanced by the creation of a chamber that, in party political terms, would be totally unrepresentative of the wider electorate is fanciful. Surely gerrymandering an electoral system so that one party—we all know which it would be: the Labour party—secured a whopping majority, perhaps 60 or 70 per cent. of the seats with less than 35 per cent. of electors' support, would be massively damaging to Scottish devolution. I urge the Secretary of State to oppose such narrow-minded proposals in every way that he knows.
  If the impact on proportionality does not strike a chord with Labour members of the Committee, perhaps something else will: the fact that their proposals would tear up, at a stroke, the cross-party and cross-society consensus that was struck in the constitutional convention.
  Alternatives to the Bill involve a reduction in the number of list MSPs, or their complete elimination. There is no doubt that list MSPs have caused some difficulty by cherry-picking. My predecessor, Donald Gorrie, produced an excellent document explaining how the single transferable vote could be used to elect MSPs, with the new Westminster boundaries forming coterminous constituencies. I commend that pamphlet to all Members.
  Mr. Roy: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  John Barrett: I am sorry, but I have only one minute left.
  Mr. Gorrie's pamphlet does not answer all the questions, but it sets out clearly and fairly the foundation on which a PR system could be used to form a Scottish Parliament.
  The Bill is a welcome first step, but we must move forward, so that we improve our relationship with the Scottish Parliament and so that a fair, PR-elected Scottish Parliament can get on with the job of representing the people of Scotland.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Peter Duncan: This has been a good debate on a small Bill. When the Secretary of State opened the debate, he may have talked more about issues that were outside the remit of the Bill than was wise, but the debate has yet again brought the banter on Scottish affairs to the Floor of the House and I am sure that the wider public are delighted. The Scottish Grand Committee is a regular highlight in my diary and I am sure the wider public appreciate the debate this evening.
  The debate has highlighted the scale of the Government's U-turn on the issue. It is useful to reflect on how far the Secretary of State—who, sadly, has not yet rejoined us—has travelled from the position that was put to the electorate in 1997.

  1219
  During consideration of Lords amendments, the late Donald Dewar, then Secretary of State for Scotland, said:
  "It is generally accepted that we cannot justify the above-average representation that Scotland enjoys in the House of Commons. It is anticipated, and I accept, that such a review will lead to a reduction in the number of Scottish Members of Parliament, and correspondingly a reduction in the number of constituencies in Scotland. In the White Paper, we made it clear that the size of the Scottish Parliament would change to take account of changes at Westminster so as to maintain common boundaries."—[Official Report, 11 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 380–81.1]
  That shows exactly how far we have travelled in only five years and to see the Secretary of State trying to justify that about-face was somewhat pitiful.
  Mr. Salmond: The debate has already established that U-turns on this issue are not the sole preserve of the Government. However, I am more concerned about whether the hon. Gentleman is in the right place, as the monitors show that the business in the other place is the Mersey Tunnels Bill.
  Mr. Duncan: The hon. Gentleman anticipates me. I had been warned of that likelihood, so I am keeping my pager switched on in case I am called away for an urgent Division in another place.
  The Secretary of State has reversed, in totality, one part of the commitment made by Donald Dewar in 1998. We also heard the astonishing revelation that the Secretary of State for Scotland, in whose constituency Scotland's major civil engineering project is being constructed and where £40 million from the taxpayers' budget has been translated into expenditure of £400 million, has never yet visited the Scottish Parliament. That says it all about London Labour. They have turned their back on what has become an embarrassment in their devolution project. They have turned their back on the Scotland Act 1998 and now we find that they have turned their back on the building itself.
  I shall reflect on some of the points that were raised in the debate. The hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) demonstrated her obsession with the number 129. She said that the consensus on the constitutional convention was 129, yet she seemed unable to transfer that consensus to some of the other issues—she seems willing to break the consensus on them. For example, there was consensus on the list system, but the hon. Lady seems happy to contemplate alternatives, and rightly so. There was consensus on proportionality, but she seems happy to dispense with some of that. Her view of consensus seems somewhat selective.
  Mrs. Irene Adams: The hon. Gentleman may recall that every witness to the Scottish Affairs Committee told us that the consensus was to maintain 129, but that the present system was not the ideal one to achieve it.
  Mr. Duncan: The hon. Lady is right; there was consistency in terms of the evidence to the Committee in that respect.
  The hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) made a powerful speech in an old-Labour way, if he does not mind me characterising it thus—back to the future, as they say.
  1220
  He reflected on the over-governance of Scotland, and on the fact that the two constituencies in Lanarkshire—I should point out that there are three: in addition to Dumfries and Clydesdale, the constituency of Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale also falls within Lanarkshire—have 19 MSPs. I comprehend that particular difficulty. Last week, I attended a public meeting in the lovely village of Wanlockhead, which, for the benefit of viewers of the parliamentary channel, is the highest situated village in Scotland. Some 100 residents of Wanlockhead attended that meeting, along with one Member of Parliament—me. The constituency MSP was also there, along with two regional MSPs. There is some degree of public disquiet at the number of politicians in Scotland.
  Mr. Hood: I hope that the hon. Gentleman was listening to my example of 19 MSPs in one constituency, but he is doubtless aware that the opposite problem is equally bad. In the south of Scotland, each list MSP claims eight constituencies. Is that not just as bad as 19 MSPs claiming one constituency?
  Mr. Duncan: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is falling into the trap of asking me to justify a system that the Labour party created. If he has a problem with the relevant part of the 1998 Act, he should point it out to the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  The right hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson)—[Interruption.] I apologise, I meant to say the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North; he has moved to my right, which is a very unusual situation for someone from Saltcoats to be in. He referred to a legislative follow-up to a political fix, and in that regard he got to the essence of today's debate. The Labour party in Scotland has got itself into a fix. It does not know how to dig itself out of an increasingly large hole, and the only way it can do so is to break some of the terms, to which I referred, of Donald Dewar's three-pronged commitment. The interrelationship between the reduction in MPs and MSPs was clear from the very start, and the U-turn in the Bill is also clear for all to see. The hon. Gentleman exposed the twists and turns that the Government have conducted to enforce that compromise, but to judge by the contributions from Government Back Benchers, that compromise still has some way to go before it receives universal acclaim.
  The hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) mentioned being out and about in Blairgowrie, which sounds a very attractive prospect. He said that when on such travels, he discovered that people do not care about coterminosity. Although it is not an issue that people come to my surgery to discuss, it will cause concern in due course. The evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee was crystal clear, and as the hon. Gentleman's colleague, the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), will know, given that he is a member of the Committee, there is concern about this issue. In reflecting on the second election to the Scottish Parliament, for which less than half the population turned out to vote, we must consider each and every possibility in order to redress declining participation in

  1221
  elections north of the border. It is a mistake for the hon. Member for North Tayside to dismiss coterminosity because it does not suit his party political advantage.
  Mr. Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is hardly surprising that nobody is concerned about coterminosity while it exists, and that the real test will be whether they are concerned about it when it does not?
  Mr. Duncan: Absolutely. As it says in the song:
  "You don't know what you've got till it's gone."
  The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) made clear his view that list MSPs do not engage people in the party political process, but I should point out that, of course, the Scotland Act 1998 was not our work. He rightly pointed out that 13 per cent. of the electorate said that they did not vote in the May elections because of confusion. I return to the point made by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North—we must regard that as a very serious issue.
  The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Rosemary McKenna) highlighted the consistent policies of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party, which I am keen to have put on the parliamentary record. She was the only Government Back Bencher to back the Government, which will mark her out for universal acclaim in the Whips Office tomorrow. I am only sorry that the Secretary of State for Scotland was not in his place and that he missed that uniquely supportive contribution.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), as Donald Dewar's successor, deserves special mention. He supported me in Committee when I suggested that the simple way of dealing with the problem was to implement the Scotland Act. He saw the wisdom in that suggestion and I am delighted to have his support. He may have had three speeches in mind tonight, but he picked the right one to deliver.
  We are left contemplating tonight the confirmation in today's debate that the Government have finally abandoned the Scotland Act. They have buckled under pressure to the vested interests that see big government and bigger parliaments as ends in themselves. Why else would they have retreated in such dramatic and pathetic fashion from their commitment to reduce the size of the Scottish Parliament before the first Member of the Scottish Parliament has even taken possession of his office in a scandalously expensive project? Why else would they have reversed the view of Ministers during the passage of the 1998 Act that the Parliament could work well with fewer Members?
  I reiterate the words of Henry McLeish, who said that
  "we also believe that the Parliament could operate effectively with fewer Members, and that there are good arguments for maintaining the linkage in constituencies."—[Official Report, 12 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 224.]
  For the record, that was the former First Minister, who made his views very clear. This is a self-serving consensus of every party, save the Scottish Conservatives, that is determined to inflict more politicians, more bureaucrats and more governance on the hard-pressed taxpayer in Scotland.
  1222
  The political landscape in Scotland is entirely clear. All the other parties from which we have heard this evening—albeit that Labour Back Benchers are perhaps a party themselves so there are honourable exceptions—are unable to contemplate a devolved Scotland being governed by any fewer than 129 MSPs. Would it have been any different if the number of MSPs had been 200 or 250? The simple truth is that political parties have become consumed with their own importance and have forgotten the interests of the man on the street. He or she is tired of Scotland's over-governing, as demonstrated by the declining turnout at elections.
  Who would have thought that fewer than one in two people would vote in the second elections to the Scottish Parliament—a Parliament for which, as the Government were so keen to point out, we had been waiting for 300 years. Four years on, fewer than half wanted to participate in the Parliament's re-election. Let there be no doubt that that was partly due to there being too many politicians in Scotland—and the public knowing it.
  The Bill is necessary only because of the Government's commitment in the Scotland Act to reduce the number of Members representing Scottish constituencies. After devolution, there was no longer a need for such wide-ranging Bills applicable only in Scotland. Our distinct legal system meant that our historic over-representation was due to our need to consider large quantities of Scotland-only Bills. That no longer applies and I hope that the Under-Secretary will, in her reply, go further than she and others have done to date and confirm that she expects to have implemented the changes of the boundary commission for Scotland by the end of the Session. With local inquiries complete and no requirement to allocate the new constituencies to Scottish parliamentary regions, there is no further excuse for the Government's failure to commit on that issue.
  Some hon. Members will have sought mischievously to suggest that this issue should not be voted on by hon. Members representing seats other than those in Scotland. I am happy to make it clear for those who are happy to obfuscate that issue, that this is a reserved matter for the UK Parliament, so all hon. Members are entitled to participate on that basis.
  I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against this unnecessary legislation, which will serve only to keep the number of politicians in Scotland at an inordinately high level. I would be delighted if the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland felt able to do the same. The Scotland Act was designed so that the number of MSPs would fall to 108 as the number of Holyrood constituencies fell in line with Westminster ones. That is precisely what should happen. It is becoming clear that the Conservatives are the only party with respect for the devolved settlement that is seeking neither to tinker with nor to undermine it.
  Although we do not believe that the Scotland Act is set in tablets of stone, we feel that there is no need to open it up at this early stage. Scotland has too many politicians and Scotland's people suffer too much from political interference. The self-serving consensus of Labour, Liberal Democrat and Scottish nationalist politicians, who want to keep it that way, are not only costing taxpayers dear but are putting the electorate off participating in elections.
  9.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Anne McGuire): An old phrase came to mind when I listened to the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) summing up for the Opposition: "Everyone's out of step, except our Jake." It appears that if everyone else in Scotland agrees on something and the Conservative party and its spokesperson do not, it is we who are wrong, and never them.
  I wish to deal with some of the issues that have been raised by quotation before summing up the debate. It is worth reminding the House that when the Scotland Bill was debated in 1998, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), now co-chairman of Conservative party, said:
  "It is not a good basis on which to start a Parliament—knowing that. very soon afterwards, possibly within its first term and certainly within its second, there will be a major redistribution. It is not a recipe for stability."—[Official Report, 11 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 387.]
  We can bandy quotations across the Floor of the House tonight, but to be frank I do not think that they add anything to the argument.
  We have had a vibrant, robust and, for the most part, good-humoured debate. Clearly, Parliamentary constituency boundaries and problems about the overlap and respective responsibilities of MPs and MSPs are matters that generate considerable interest among hon. Members—certainly among many of my hon. Friends, and I will look round at them now and again just to make sure that they are still with me.
  Quite a number of comments have been made about devolution itself and the operation of the Scottish Parliament. I will certainly try to pick up on some of the main points, but I want to make a general comment. As a Government, we are committed to modernising this country's political and constitutional agenda, and we are delivering on that modernisation agenda. The success of devolution is that it has undoubtedly brought government closer to the people of Scotland on a wide range of matters that affect their day-to-day lives. Indeed, devolution has made a difference.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State indicated a few hours ago, this short Bill is focused on a relatively straightforward objective: to remove the statutory link in the Scotland Act 1998 between the number of constituencies at Westminster and the number at Holyrood. Before we embarked on this action, we conducted a consultation exercise to take into account the views of many groups and interests across Scotland, and more than 230 replies were received.
  Mr. Salmond: There is now a Division in the Lords.
  When I asked the Secretary of State at the start of the debate why the matter that we were considering could not be left to the Scottish Parliament, he said that I wanted that to happen because I was a nationalist. Can the hon. Lady tell me of any legislative assembly—devolved or otherwise—anywhere in the world that does not have control over its own electoral system, except that in Scotland?
  Mrs. McGuire: With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, this is a settlement in the United Kingdom,
  1224
  not in any other part of the world. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but he cannot just import what happens in other parts of the world into the United Kingdom. We all understand that the settlement was agreed by the Scottish people.
  I want to reflect for a couple of moments on the extent of the replies that we received before embarking on the Bill. We had 237 responses in total, and 28 from a range of civic bodies, including the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, Unison, the Educational Institute of Scotland, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Scottish Green party, the Scottish Labour party, the Scottish Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National party, the Scottish Socialist party and a variety of other constituency parties or groups.
  All those organisations and individuals support the policy of retaining 129 MSPs in the Scottish Parliament. I hope that we will have no argument about the fact that what we are reflecting today is the views, after consultation, of people in Scotland and the organisations that they are affiliated to or trust.
  Mr. Duncan: If the balance of the argument is so clear-cut, why was it not foreseen in 1998 when the hon. Lady's colleagues in government made it clear that the number had to remain at 129 before being reduced?
  Mrs. McGuire: I suppose that if I were a generous woman—which I am—I would say that the hon. Member for Woodspring identified the problem. That is one reason why, in the debates in this House and in the other place, we gave ourselves the opportunity to come back and consider what we should do about the numbers in the Scottish Parliament once the legislation that created it had been enacted. We were building a new Parliament in Scotland—not a just physical building, but a whole new way of governance—and it was important to make the best possible attempt to do that in 1998. We did that in good faith. Now that the Parliament has been in place for four or five years, we have consulted, and the overwhelming majority of the responses from civic and political society in Scotland is that 129 MSPs are needed at the moment to organise a Scottish Parliament.
  The hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) seems to be obsessed by the boundary commission, but I reiterate once again the Secretary of State's commitment that the Bill will have no impact on our commitment to reducing the number of constituencies represented at Westminster. Action will be taken on that front once the boundary commission has reported with its recommendations to my right hon. Friend.
  As my right hon. Friend also highlighted, we have been mindful of the views that have been expressed about the possibility of practical and other difficulties that might arise from the creation of a new set of constituency boundaries. The debate today has shown clearly that there is a range of views on the extent of the potential problems and even more so—dare I say it?—on their solutions.
  It is also worth reflecting that when the consultation was undertaken, there was no absolutely no mention in any meaningful sense of the idea that a lack of coterminosity—or whatever word we use to describe

  1225
  it—would be an issue. It is only latterly that we have incorporated some of the difficulties or perceived difficulties that might result from a lack of coterminous boundaries. However, I remind hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friends, that in Scottish politics we have operated for a long time, particularly in the local government sphere, with a lack of coterminous boundaries. We have managed to deal with the issues.
  I hope that by bringing forward the timetable to establish an independent body to look in depth at those and related matters, we will allay many of the concerns that were expressed by Members on both sides. I am confident that most of the points made about the potential difficulties of operating within different constituency boundaries can be analysed and solutions found as necessary through the review.
  I shall now cover some of the individual points that have been raised in the debate. I thank all those who have participated, because the debate has been good humoured and robust and much political experience has been brought to bear. I particularly thank my hon. Friends the Members for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams), for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe), for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons), for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Rosemary McKenna), for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) and for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson).
  My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North is the Chairman of the Scottish Affairs Committee and I know that she played a key role in producing the report with her colleagues. I hope that she will accept that some of the Committee's recommendations will now legitimately be within the domain of the new commission. I trust that that will allay some of the fears that members of the Committee have expressed.
  I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) has welcomed the establishment of the commission. I again reiterate the answer to the question about the proportionality of the electoral system.
  We all recognise that the principles of the devolution settlement were laid down by a cross-party consensus in the constitutional convention. Any changes to the electoral system for the Scottish Parliament must reflect those principles and command cross-party and non-party support in Scotland.
  I hope that I can comfort my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale because I know that he is concerned about whether the decision about electoral systems and coterminosity will be made by an amorphous, independent review. The decision will be made by this Parliament and not by the commission. This Parliament must ultimately decide what it wants to do about the electoral system and any other recommendations from the commission.
  Mr. Hood: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for seeking to comfort me. Is she saying that the recommendation will not appear before the House on a one-clause three-line Whip?
  Mrs. McGuire: I must say to my hon. Friend that I am thankful that I am no longer a member of the Whips
  1226
  Office—I was a member for four years. He is experienced enough to know that Government business is Government business is Government business.
  I would like to highlight the touching naivety of the hon. Member for North Tayside. He specifically asked whether we would fight an election on the existing boundaries if one were called for two months' time. Given that we have discussed trying to arrange a postal ballot seven months hence with the electoral returning officers in Scotland, I would be astonished if we could reorganise the boundaries within two months in time for any potential election that the hon. Gentleman may have in his imagination. When he discusses national Parliaments, he should remember that this is a national Parliament—it is the United Kingdom Parliament.
  Pete Wishart: Will the Minister give way?
  Mrs. McGuire: No, I must go on.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth not only on her wholehearted support for the Bill this evening but on her long history of support, activity and campaigning both for the Scottish Parliament and for increased gender recognition in all elected bodies—she is also my Member of Parliament.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid)—I do not know whether he is in the House at the moment—on working through the morass, as he put it, of local names and constituencies in Argyll and Bute. I must tell him that the naming of constituencies is a matter for the boundary commission and not for the Government.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South that we want to continue winning. The debate is not for anoraks; it is about ensuring that we get the best possible government for Scotland. He also said that he was pleased that he was not elected for Central Scotland when he was put on top of the list.
  I appreciate that a number of hon. Members, including some of my hon. Friends, are not yet entirely comfortable with our proposals. However, we are in a period of change and development for our constitution. The Bill marks a small but important step in consolidating progress, and I ask the House to support it.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 333, Noes 127.

  Division No. 47]

  [9:59 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Ainger, Nick

  Battle, John

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Alexander, Douglas

  Beard, Nigel

  Allen, Graham

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Anderson, Janet(Rossendale &

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Darwen)

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Bennett, Andrew

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Baird, Vera

  Berry, Roger

  Baker, Norman

  Best, Harold

  Banks, Tony

  Betts, Clive

  Barrett, John

  Blackman, Liz

  1227

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Borrow, David

  Efford, Clive

  Bradley, Peter(The Wrekin)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Breed, Colin

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Brennan, Kevin

  Farrelly, Paul

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Wallsend)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Flint, Caroline

  Browne, Desmond

  Flynn, Paul(Newport W)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Follett, Barbara

  Bryant, Chris

  Foster, rh Derek

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

  Burden, Richard

  & Rye)

  Burgon, Colin

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Burnham, Andy

  Gardiner, Barry

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Gerrard, Neil

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Cairns, David

  Gidley, Sandra

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Gilroy, Linda

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Goggins, Paul

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Fife)

  Grogan, John

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hain, rh Peter

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Casale, Roger

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Caton, Martin

  Hancock, Mike

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Hanson, David

  Challen, Colin

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Chaytor, David

  Healey, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clark, Mrs Helen(Peterborough)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

  Hendrick, Mark

  Pentlands)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Heppell, John

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Hermon, Lady

  Chryston)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clelland, David

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Heyes, David

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hodge, Margaret

  Cohen, Harry

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Colman, Tony

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Cotter, Brian

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cruddas, Jon

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Sefton E)

  Cummings, John

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  (Copeland)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Urmston)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hutton, rh John

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Ingram, rh Adam

  David, Wayne

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Davies, rh Denzil(Llanelli)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jamieson, David

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jenkins, Brian

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Denham, rh John

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Doran, Frank

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Doughty, Sue

  Keen, Alan (Feftham)

  1228

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Purnell, James

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Kidney, David

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Knight Jim (S Dorset)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Bellshill)

  Lamb, Norman

  Rendel, David

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Robertson, John (Glasgow

  Lepper, David

  Anniesland)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  NW)

  Linton, Martin

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Rooney, Terry

  Love, Andrew

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Ruane, Chris

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Ruddock, Joan

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Salmond, Alex

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Salter, Martin

  MacDonald, Calum

  Sanders, Adrian

  McDonnell, John

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  MacDougall, John

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McFall, John

  Sawford, Phil

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McIsaac, Shona

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McKechin, Ann

  Sheerman, Barry

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Sheridan, Jim

  McNulty, Tony

  Short, rh Clare

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  McWalter. Tony

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

  Marsden, Gordon(Blackpool S)

  Finsbury)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

  Martlew, Eric

  Lunesdale)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Miliband, David

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

  Miller, Andrew

  Kincardine)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Soley, Clive

  Mole, Chris

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Stevenson, George

  Moore, Michael

  Stewart, David (Inverness E &

  Moran, Margaret

  Lochaber)

  Morley, Elliot

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mountford, Kali

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Mudie, George

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Stringer, Graham

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Teather, Sarah

  Owen, Albert

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Perham, Linda

  Thurso, John

  Picking, Anne

  Timms, Stephen

  Pickthall, Colin

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Trickett, Jon

  Plaskitt, James

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Kemptown)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  E)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Prescott, rh John

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Watts, David

  Purchase, Ken

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  1229

  Weir, Michael

  Wishart, Pete

  White, Brian

  Woodward, Shaun

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Woolas, Phil

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Worthington, Tony

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Yarmouth)

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Willis, Phil

  Wilson, Brian

  Winnick, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

  Mr. Fraser Kemp and

  C)

  Gillian Merron

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Bacon, Richard

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Barker, Gregory

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Boswell, Tim

  Leigh, Edward

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Surrey)

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Brady, Graham

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Brazier, Julian

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Loughton, Tim

  Burnside, David

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Burt, Alistair

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Butterfill, Sir John

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

  Maclean, rh David

  Barnet)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Chope, Christopher

  Maude, rh Francis

  Clappison, James

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Collins, Tim

  Mercer, Patrick

  Curry, rh David

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

  Coldfield)

  Stamford)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Howden)

  Norman, Archie

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  O'Brien, Stephen(Eddisbury)

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Page, Richard

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Paice, James

  Evans, Nigel

  Pickles, Eric

  Fabricant, Michael

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Field, Mark (Cities of London &

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Westminster)

  Randall, John

  Flight, Howard

  Redwood, rh John

  Flook, Adrian

  Robathan, Andrew

  Forth, rh Eric

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Garnier, Edward

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Selous, Andrew

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Shepherd, Richard

  Goodman, Paul

  Simmonds, Mark

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Grieve, Dominic

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Hague, rh William

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Hammond, Philip

  Spring, Richard

  Hawkins, Nick

  Steen, Anthony

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Streeter, Gary

  Heald, Oliver

  Swayne, Desmond

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Swire, Hugo(E Devon)

  Hendry, Charles

  Syms, Robert

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Howard, rh Michael

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Tredinnick, David

  Hunter, Andrew

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Jack, rh Michael

  Tyrie, Andrew

  1230

  Viggers, Peter

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Waterson, Nigel

  (Macclesfield)

  Watkinson, Angela

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Whittingdale, John

  Young, rh Sir George

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Wiggin, Bill

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wilshire, David

  Hugh Robertson and

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Mr. Mark Francois

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.

  Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill

    SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT (CONSTITUENCIES) BILL (PROGRAMME)
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 6 November 2003],
    That the following provisions shall apply to the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill:

    Division No. 48]

    [10:15 pm

    AYES

    Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

    Blackman, Liz

    Ainger, Nick

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Ainsworth, Bob(Cov'try NE)

    Blizzard, Bob

    Alexander, Douglas

    Borrow, David

    Allen, Graham

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Darwen)

    Breed, Colin

    Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

    Brennan, Kevin

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

    Baird, Vera

    Wallsend)

    Baker, Norman

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Banks, Tony

    Browne, Desmond

    Barrett, John

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Barron, rh Kevin

    Bryant, Chris

    Battle, John

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Bayley, Hugh

    Burden, Richard

    Beard, Nigel

    Burgon, Colin

    Beckett, rh Margaret

    Burnham. Andy

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Byers, rh Stephen

    Beith, rh A. J.

    Caborn, rh Richard

    Benton, Joe (Bootle)

    Cairns, David

    Berry, Roger

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Betts, Clive

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    1231

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Goggins, Paul

    Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Fife)

    Grogan, John

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Hain, rh Peter

    Caplin, Ivor

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Casale, Roger

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    Caton, Martin

    Hanson, David

    Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

    Harman, rh Ms Harriet

    Challen, Colin

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Healey, John

    Chaytor, David

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Clapham, Michael

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

    Hendrick, Mark

    Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Pentlands)

    Heppell, John

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Hesford, Stephen

    Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

    Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

    Chryston)

    Heyes, David

    Clelland, David

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

    Hodge, Margaret

    Coaker, Vernon

    Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

    Cohen, Harry

    Hoon, rh Geoffrey

    Colman, Tony

    Hope, Phil (Corby)

    Connarty, Michael

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Cooper, Yvette

    Howarth. rh Alan (Newport E)

    Cotter, Brian

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

    Cruddas, Jon

    Sefton E)

    Cryer Ann (Keighley)

    Howells, Dr. Kim

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Cummings, John

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

    Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

    Urmston)

    (Copeland)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Hutton, rh John

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Iddon, Dr. Brian

    Dalyell, Tam

    Ingram, rh Adam

    Darling, rh Alistair

    Irranca-Davies, Huw

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    David, Wayne

    Jamieson, David

    Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Denham, rh John

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Jowell, rh Tessa

    Dismore, Andrew

    Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

    Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

    Kaufman, rh Gerald

    Dobson, rh Frank

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Keen, Alan (Feltham)

    Doran, Frank

    Keen, Ann (Brentford)

    Doughty, Sue

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

    Kidney, David

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Efford, Clive

    King, Andy (Rugby)

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Kirkwood, Sir Archy

    Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Ewing, Annabelle

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    Farrelly, Paul

    Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

    Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

    Lamb, Norman

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Flint, Caroline

    Lepper, David

    Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Follett, Barbara

    Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

    Foster, rh Derek

    Linton, Martin

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    & Rye)

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Francis, Dr. Hywel

    Love, Andrew

    Gardiner, Barry

    Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

    Gibson, Dr. Ian

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Gidley, Sandra

    McCabe, Stephen

    Gilroy, Linda

    McCafferty, Chris

    Godsiff, Roger

    McCartney, rh Ian

    1232

    MacDonald, Calum

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    McDonnell, John

    Savidge, Malcolm

    MacDougall, John

    Sawford, Phil

    McFall, John

    Sedgemore, Brian

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Shaw, Jonathan

    McIsaac, Shona

    Sheerman, Barry

    McKechin, Ann

    Sheridan, Jim

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Short, rh Clare

    McNulty, Tony

    Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    McWalter, Tony

    Skinner, Dennis

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

    Mendelson, rh Peter

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

    Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

    Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Finsbury)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Lunesdale)

    Martlew, Eric

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Michael, rh Alun

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

    Miliband, David

    Kincardine)

    Miller, Andrew

    Soley, Clive

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Mole, Chris

    Stevenson, George

    Moonie, Dr. Lewis

    Stewart, David (Inverness E &

    Moore, Michael

    Lochaber)

    Moran, Margaret

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Morley, Elliot

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Mountford, Kali

    Stoate, Dr. Howard

    Mudie, George

    Stringer, Graham

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Stunell, Andrew

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

    Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Taylor, David(NW Leis)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Teather, Sarah

    Öpik, Lembit

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Owen, Albert

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Palmer, Dr. Nick

    Thurso, John

    Perham, Linda

    Timms, Stephen

    Picking, Anne

    Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Trickett, Jon

    Pike, Peter (Burnley)

    Turner, Dennis(Wolverh"ton SE)

    Plaskitt, James

    Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

    Pollard, Kerry

    Kemptown)

    Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    E)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Prescott, rh John

    Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

    Primarolo, rh Dawn

    Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Watts, David

    Pugh, Dr. John

    Webb, Steve (Northavon)

    Purchase, Ken

    Weir, Michael

    Purnell, James

    White, Brian

    Quin, rh Joyce

    Whitehead, Dr. Alan

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

    Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

    Raynsford, rh Nick

    Williams, Betty(Conwy)

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

    Willis, Phil

    Bellshill)

    Winnick, David

    Rendel, David

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

    Robertson, Angus (Moray)

    C)

    Robertson, John(Glasgow

    Wishart, Pete

    Anniesland)

    Woodward, Shaun

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Woolas, Phil

    Rooney, Terry

    Worthington, Tony

    Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

    Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

    Ruane, Chris

    Yarmouth)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Wyatt, Derek

    Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

    Salmond, Alex

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Salter, Martin

    Mr. Fraser Kemp and

    Sanders, Adrian

    Gillian Merron

    1233

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Arbuthnot, rh James

    Leigh, Edward

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Letwin, rh Oliver

    Bacon, Richard

    Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

    Barker, Gregory

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Baron, John (Billericay)

    Lilley, rh Peter

    Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

    Loughton, Tim

    Bellingham, Henry

    Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Boswell, Tim

    Mackay, rh Andrew

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Maclean, rh David

    Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW

    McLoughlin. Patrick

    Surrey)

    Maude, rh Francis

    Brady, Graham

    Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

    Brazier,,Julian

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Mercer, Patrick

    Burnside, David

    Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

    Burt, Alistair

    Coldfield)

    Butterfill, Sir John

    Moss, Malcolm

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

    Murrison, Dr. Andrew

    Barnet)

    Norman, Archie

    Chope, Christopher

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Clappison, James

    Osborne, George (Tatton)

    Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Page, Richard

    Collins, Tim

    Paice, James

    Curry, rh David

    Pickles, Eric

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

    Portillo, rh Michael

    Stamford)

    Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

    Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

    Randall, John

    Howden)

    Redwood, rh John

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Robathan, Andrew

    Dorrell, rh Stephen

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Evans, Nigel

    Selous, Andrew

    Fabricant, Michael

    Shepherd, Richard

    Field, Mark (Cities of London &

    Simmonds, Mark

    Westminster)

    Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

    Flight, Howard

    Soames, Nicholas

    Flook, Adrian

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Forth, rh Eric

    Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

    Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

    Spring, Richard

    Garnier, Edward

    Steen, Anthony

    Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

    Streeter, Gary

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Swayne, Desmond

    Goodman, Paul

    Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

    Gray, James (N Wilts)

    Syms, Robert

    Green, Damian (Ashford)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Grieve, Dominic

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Hague, rh William

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Hammond, Philip

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Hancock, Mike

    Tredinnick, David

    Hawkins, Nick

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Hayes, John (S Holland)

    Tyne, Andrew

    Heald, Oliver

    Viggers, Peter

    Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

    Waterson, Nigel

    Hendry, Charles

    Watkinson, Angela

    Hermon, Lady

    Whittingdale, John

    Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

    Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

    Hogg, rh Douglas

    Wiggin, Bill

    Horam, John (OrpingOrpingtonton)

    Wilshire, David

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Winterton, Sir Nicholas

    Jack, rh Michael

    (Macclesfield)

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Young, rh Sir George

    Key, Robert (Salisbury)

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

    Mr. Mark Francois and

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Hugh Robertson

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Committee tomorrow.

    SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT (CONSTITUENCIES) BILL (PROGRAMME)
      Committal
      1. The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

      Proceedings
      2. Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed at one day's sitting.
      3. Proceedings in Committee of the whole House and any proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
      4. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

      Programming Committee
      5. Sessional Order B (programming committees) made on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on Third Reading.

      Programming of proceedings
      6. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Margaret Moran.]
      The House divided: Ayes 327, Noes 129.

    EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS 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 14th January 2004 in relation to the Employment Relations Bill be amended by the substitution in paragraph 2 (time for conclusion of proceedings in Standing Committee) for the words '26th February' of the words '2nd March'.—[Margaret Moran.]
    The House divided: Ayes 317. Noes 125.

    Division No. 49]

    [10:28 pm

    AYES

    Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

    Clapham, Michael

    Ainger, Nick

    Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

    Alexander, Douglas

    Pentlands)

    Allen, Graham

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

    Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

    Darwen)

    Chryston)

    Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

    Clelland, David

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Coaker, Vernon

    Baird, Vera

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Baker, Norman

    Cohen, Harry

    Banks, Tony

    Colman, Tony

    Barrett, John

    Connarty, Michael

    Barron, rh Kevin

    Cotter, Brian

    Battle, John

    Cruddas, Jon

    Bayley, Hugh

    Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

    Beard, Nigel

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Beckett, rh Margaret

    Cummings, John

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

    Beith, rh A. J.

    (Copeland)

    Benton, Joe (Bootle)

    Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

    Berry, Roger

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Betts, Clive

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Blackman, Liz

    Dalyell, Tam

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Darling, rh Alistair

    Blizzard, Bob

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Borrow, David

    David, Wayne

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Dawson, Hilton

    Breed, Colin

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Brennan, Kevin

    Denham, rh John

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

    Dismore, Andrew

    Wallsend)

    Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Dobson, rh Frank

    Browne, Desmond

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Doran, Frank

    Bryant, Chris

    Doughty, Sue

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

    Burden, Richard

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Burgon, Colin

    Efford, Clive

    Burnham, Andy

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Byers, rh Stephen

    Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

    Caborn, rh Richard

    Ewing, Annabelle

    Cairns, David

    Farrelly, Paul

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE

    Flint, Caroline

    Fife)

    Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Follett, Barbara

    Caplin, Ivor

    Foster, rh Derek

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

    Casale, Roger

    & Rye)

    Caton, Martin

    Francis, Dr. Hywel

    Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

    Gardiner, Barry

    Challen, Colin

    Gerrard, Neil

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Gibson, Dr. Ian

    Chaytor, David

    Gidley, Sandra

    1235

    Gilroy, Linda

    MacDougall, John

    Godsiff, Roger

    McFall, John

    Goggins, Paul

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    McIsaac, Shona

    Grogan, John

    McKechin, Ann

    Hain, rh Peter

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    McNulty, Tony

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    McWalter, Tony

    Hanson, David

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Harman, rh Ms Harriet

    Mandelson, rh Peter

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

    Healey, John

    Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Hendrick, Mark

    Martlew, Eric

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Michael, rh Alun

    Heppell, John

    Miliband, David

    Hesford, Stephen

    Miller, Andrew

    Heyes, David

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Mole, Chris

    Hodge, Margaret

    Moonie, Dr. Lewis

    Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

    Moore, Michael

    Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

    Moran, Margaret

    Hoon, rh Geoffrey

    Morley, Elliot

    Hope, Phil (Corby)

    Mountford, Kali

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Mudie, George

    Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Sefton E)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Howells, Dr. Kim

    Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

    O'Neill, Martin

    Urmston)

    Öpik, Lembit

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Owen, Albert

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Palmer, Dr. Nick

    Hutton, rh John

    Perham, Linda

    Iddon, Dr. Brian

    Picking, Anne

    Ingram, rh Adam

    Pickthall, Colin

    Irranca-Davies, Huw

    Pike, Peter (Burnley)

    Jamieson, David

    Plaskitt, James

    Jenkins, Brian

    Pollard, Kerry

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

    Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    E)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Primarolo, rh Dawn

    Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Kaufman, rh Gerald

    Pugh, Dr. John

    Keen, Alan (Feltham)

    Purchase, Ken

    Keen, Ann (Brentford)

    Purnell, James

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Quin, rh Joyce

    Kidney, David

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

    King, Andy (Rugby)

    Raynsford, rh Nick

    Kirkwood, Sir Archy

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

    Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

    Bellshill)

    Lamb, Norman

    Bendel, David

    Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

    Robertson, Angus (Moray)

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Robertson, John (Glasgow

    Lepper, David

    Anniesland)

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

    Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

    NW)

    Linton, Martin

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Rooney, Terry

    Llwyd Elfyn

    Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

    Love, Andrew

    Ruane, Chris

    Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

    McCabe, Stephen

    Salmond, Alex

    McCafferty, Chris

    Sanders, Adrian

    McCartney, rh Ian

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    MacDonald, Calum

    Savidge, Malcolm

    McDonnell, John

    Sawford, Phil

    1236

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Trickett, Jon

    Sheridan, Jim

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

    Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

    Simpson. Alan (Nottingham S)

    Kemptown)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Smith. rh Andrew (Oxford E)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

    Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

    Finsbury)

    Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

    Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

    Watts, David

    Lunesdale)

    Webb, Steve (Northavon)

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Weir, Michael

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

    Whitehead, Dr. Alan

    Kincardine)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Soley, Clive

    Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Williams, Betty (Conwy)

    Stevenson, George

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    Stewart, David (Inverness E &

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Lochaber)

    Willis, Phil

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Winnick, David

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

    Stoate, Dr. Howard

    C)

    Wishan, Pete

    Stringer, Graham

    Woodward, Shaun

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Woolas, Phil

    Stunell, Andrew

    Worthington, Tony

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

    Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

    Yarmouth)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Teather, Sarah

    Wyatt, Derek

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Thurso, John

    Mr. Fraser Kemp and

    Timms, Stephen

    Gillian Merron

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Flook, Adrian

    Arbuthnot, rh James

    Forth, rh Eric

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

    Bacon, Richard

    Garnier, Edward

    Barker, Gregory

    Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

    Baron, John (Billericay)

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

    Goodman, Paul

    Bellingham, Henry

    Gray, James (N Wilts)

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Green, Damian (Ashford)

    Boswell, Tim

    Grieve, Dominic

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Hague, rh William

    Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW

    Hammond, Philip

    Surrey)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Brady, Graham

    Hayes, John (S Holland)

    Brazier, Julian

    Heald, Oliver

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

    Burnside, David

    Hendry, Charles

    Burt, Alistair

    Hermon, Lady

    Butterfill, Sir John

    Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

    Hogg, rh Douglas

    Barnet)

    Horam, John (Orpington)

    Chope, Christopher

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Clappison, James

    Hunter, Andrew

    Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Jack, rh Michael

    Collins, Tim

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Curry, rh David

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

    Key, Robert (Salisbury)

    Stamford)

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

    Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

    Howden)

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Dorrell, rh Stephen

    Leigh, Edward

    Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

    Letwin, rh Oliver

    Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

    Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

    Evans, Nigel

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Fabricant, Michael

    Lilley, rh Peter

    Field, Mark (Cities of London &

    Loughton, Tim

    Westminster)

    Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

    Flight, Howard

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    1237

    Mackay, rh Andrew

    Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

    Maclean, rh David

    Spring, Richard

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Steen, Anthony

    Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

    Streeter, Gary

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Swayne, Desmond

    Mercer, Patrick

    Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

    Syms, Robert

    Coldfield)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Moss, Malcolm

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Murrison, Dr. Andrew

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Norman, Archie

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Tredinnick, David

    Osborne, George (Tatton)

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Page, Richard

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Paice, James

    Viggers, Peter

    Pickles, Eric

    Waterson, Nigel

    Portillo, rh Michael

    Watkinson, Angela

    Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

    Whittingdale, John

    Randall, John

    Wiggin, Bill

    Redwood, rh John

    Wilshire, David

    Robathan, Andrew

    Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Winterton, Sir Nicholas

    Rosindell, Andrew

    (Macclesfield)

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

    Shepherd, Richard

    Young, rh Sir George

    Simmonds, Mark

    Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Soames, Nicholas

    Hugh Robertson and

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Mr. Mark Francois

    Question accordingly agreed to.

    NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 116(1) (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)),
    That—
    (1) the draft Budget (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee;
    (2) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Thursday 26th February at half-past Two o'clock; and
    (3) at the sitting—

    (a) the Committee shall take questions under Standing Order No. 110 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)), and shall then consider the instrument referred to it under paragraph (1) above; and

    (b) at the conclusion of these proceedings, a motion for the adjournment of the Committee may be made by a Minister of the Crown, pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 116 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)).—[Margaret Moran.]

    Question agreed to.

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With the leave of the House, I shall put the Questions on the two motions together.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation),

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
      PREVENTION AND SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM
      That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Continuance of Part VII) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 15th January, be approved.

      LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSION
      That the draft Criminal Defence Service (Choice in Very High Cost Cases) (Amendment) Regulations 2004, which were laid before this House on 15th January, be approved.—Margaret Moran.]
      Question agreed to.

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

      PROCEDURES FOR GRANTING AND WITHDRAWING REFUGEE STATUS
      That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 14686/03, amended draft Council Directive on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status; notes that this forms part of the package of measures creating a Common European Asylum System, and supports the Government's position that the Directive should properly take into account the needs of Member States to adapt policies in response to changing situations.—[Margaret Moran.]
      Question agreed to.

      DELEGATED LEGISLATION
      Ordered,
      That the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Regulations 2003 (S.I., 2003, No. 3311) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Margaret Moran.]

      Horse Riding (Castle Point)
      10.42 pm
      Bob Spink: The horse riding community in Castle Point is up in arms. On Canvey Island alone, there are more than 200 horses, but only one bridleway. Areas of Canvey Island, including the fields of Waterside leisure centre, fields adjacent to Cornelius Vermuyden school and the sea wall near the golf course have been used by horse riders since 1968, but are now increasingly denied to them. That is intolerable. Horse riders are decent people, many of whom are young people doing what they should be doing—getting off the streets to pursue their hobbies—and the council should be supporting them, not hurting them. Therefore, 60 horse riders have compiled a petition in the following terms:
      To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled
      The Humble Petition of Miss Wendy Eydman, Councillor Dorothy Best and others of like disposition
      Sheweth
      That traditional amenities and recreation areas used by horse riders in Castle Point are increasingly being denied to them and that the safety of the riders and horses is put at risk, by barriers and fences often erected to stop motorcyclists or, indeed, the horse riders themselves.
      Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House shall urge the Government to bring pressure on Castle Point Borough Council to take into account the needs of local horse riders and to promote rather than constrain accessibility to their

      1239
      traditional recreational riding areas and to ensure that, for safety, any new road from Roscommon Way to Haven Road on Canvey Island will include a bridleway.
      And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
      To lie upon the Table.

  Rother District Council
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Margaret Moran.]
  10.44 pm
  Gregory Barker: I am grateful for the opportunity to address hon. Members and highlight yet another blatant example of Labour's covert agenda to underfund local authorities in the south-east to divert taxpayers' money to their heartlands. Sadly, that has become a familiar story throughout our front-line public services in East Sussex. If we examine the funding for the county council, the fire authority, the police authority or even our local hospitals, all tell the same story of fiddled formulae and chronic underfunding.
  My constituents have seen their taxes rise and rise again under the Government, with precious little in return. Tonight, I want to focus especially on the plight of Rother district council. Rother is a responsible and prudent authority, where performance has improved in leaps in bounds since the Conservatives regained majority control five years ago. However, that prudent and fiscally astute authority, which managed to keep its council tax at the lowest rate of any district council in the county and operates efficiently with the lowest employee-to-resident ratio in Sussex, faces the prospect of savage cuts in jobs and front-line services because of the Government's policy systematically to underfund areas such as ours.
  The Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire has described the average 6.5 per cent. increase that local authorities will receive in grant next year as a good settlement. Indeed, that would be true if it were a 6.5 per cent. rise on a like-for-like basis compared with last year and distributed fairly throughout the country. However, it is not. The Minister also said that the current trend in council tax rises was unsustainable. At least we can agree about that.
  Bexhill and Battle has one of the highest levels of pensioner households in the country. The overwhelming majority depend on fixed incomes and savings, the returns on which have gone down and down in real terms in recent years. For all its relative prosperity, it has pockets of genuine deprivation. Year after year, Government-induced tax rises cripple my constituents, young families and old folks alike. Many people who come to my surgery tell me that, overall, the council tax bill is the largest single item in their household budget, which directly cuts into the amount that they can afford to spend on food and heating. The relentless rise in council tax cannot go on; something has got to give.
  The Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire has told Rother that he will not hesitate to use the Government's capping powers if the council tax is increased by more than 5 per cent. I shall outline the way in which the abysmal support that the Government have given Rother will mean a dramatic cut in front-line services—that would be the only option if the council were capped. Perhaps when the Under-Secretary replies, he will map out in detail where he believes that the knife should fall. Which services would he like to be axed? How many essential public employees would he like to be thrown on the dole?

  1241
  The treasurer of Rother district council has assessed that the increased grant settlement will not go anywhere near repairing the damage that last year's reassessment caused. Last year, Rother lost a massive £1.2 million in Government aid—a huge 10 per cent. of its budget. We could quibble about percentage points here and there, but the figures speak for themselves.
  If we consider the funding for 1994 to 2001, we see that the grant as a percentage of the local budget ranged from 67 per cent. to 63 per cent. Since 2001, that figure has dropped to only 50 per cent.—a massive fall and a massive increase in the amount of council tax as a percentage of the budget. Rother district council has been left in the position of having to recover from the decrease while trying to maintain its essential services for its residents and cope with new demands from Government to take on even more financial responsibilities. Talk of the above-inflation settlement may be borne out by national statistics and UK averages, but specific councils such as Rother have been left much worse off.
  Since 1997–98, the Government grant compared with their assessment of Rother's need to spend through the standard spending assessment formula spending share has fallen from 66 per cent. to below 50 per cent. During that time, the council restricted its increase in spending to less than 4.5 per cent. on average, despite taking on numerous new responsibilities such as a progressive recycling regime, which is expected to cost the taxpayer an additional 10 per cent. per annum.
  Rother is a frugal, well run council that charges the lowest council tax of all the East Sussex boroughs and districts. Only 10 per cent. of the local tax that it collects goes directly to pay for Rother services because 81 per cent. goes straight to the county council and 9 per cent. to Sussex police.
  The recent comprehensive performance assessment inspection highlighted the strong financial control exercised by the council in managing its finances, and awarded the council the maximum score of four. Therefore, it would be wrong to cite poor financial management as a reason for any council tax rise.
  It was estimated last month that without a fairer settlement from central Government, Rother council tax will have to rise by approximately 13 per cent. to maintain current services, and to rise by about 21 per cent. to allow for additional new financial burdens being placed directly on the council by the Government. This year alone, further cash must be found to fund the new Government requirements for liquor licensing, which transfer responsibility for local licensing from magistrates courts to Rother. There are also dramatic increases in the cost of Government inspections, new statutory obligations in respect of local homelessness, and the hefty cost of mandatory participation in the e-government programme, which alone accounts for a 4 per cent. rise in the council tax. I shall deal with each of those items in more detail later.
  The Government's main defence on this issue to date has been to fall back on generalisations and to quote the national increases in Government support, as the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire has done in all his correspondence with Rother
  1242
  authorities. It is meaningless, however, in relation to the individual authority level. I hope that when the Minister responds he will present the House with more accurate figures than those deployed by his right hon. Friend, as Rother is one of the district councils that has received the absolute minimum increase in Government support, and not the 5.5 per cent. as his colleague wrongly claimed in his letter to the leader of Rother district council, Councillor Graham Gubby.
  On 10 December last year, the Chancellor announced in his pre-Budget report that a further £340 million would be contributed towards local government support for 2004–05. Even taking into account the Chancellor's much-vaunted increase, for the people of Rother the overall increase amounted to less than £1 per head. Just before Christmas, Rother's director of resources, Dr. Pay Ramewal, was told that Rother would receive just an extra £34,000—an increase of less than 0.5 per cent., taking the overall increase in Government support to a paltry £77,000. Yet in November, when the Government announced their 2004–05 grant figures, they had guaranteed a floor of an increase of 2.2 per cent—£143,000 in Rother's case. With the extra £340 million announced by the Chancellor on 10 December, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister released a further revised grant settlement and an even higher floor of 3 per cent. Based on this new floor, Rother district council should be entitled to an extra £194,000. Even with the revised increase, however, the actual additional settlement for Rother is just £77,000. That means a shortfall even in the Government's floor of £117,000. On a like for like basis, that represents an increase of 2.9 per cent to be shouldered by the Rother council tax payer.
  As a result of Rother district council's overall unfair treatment in the settlement, Rother residents are staring at an increase of more than 20 per cent. in their council tax bill this year, unless cuts are made in services. Rother's budget has been prepared in line with the council's medium-term strategy of modestly increasing its resource base annually, through moderate phased council tax increases to secure and maintain a prudent and sound financial future. This year's figures, however, have been prepared on a standstill basis. The 2.9 per cent increase on a like for like basis that Rother is receiving takes into account the transfer of benefit funding to the Department for Work and Pensions. The original £34,000 increase, as already mentioned, represents 0.5 per cent. in cash for the council compared with the increase of £143,000 that the council would have rightly expected to see under the floors mechanism. The injustice to Rother in the settlement is plain to see, and the council rightly made representations to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. It would appear that a number of district councils across the country have feared a similar outcome.
  Nationally, the Treasury has assumed an average increase in council tax levels for 2004–05 of 7 per cent. but if Rother district council were to spend at the Government's assumed level, it would need to raise nearly £5.5 million locally. That would have a shocking effect on band D council tax charges, pushing them up by 30 per cent. The Government appear to be on a totally different planet. The assumptions do not take into account the impact of the latest raft of obligations, which will force up the council tax.

  1243
  The Government are continuing to pile additional costs on to local government, while taking no account of the real costs when it comes to handing out funds for the next year.
  It is clear that the Government's mean and divisive grant settlement has been disappointing to the council and residents of Rother. Until two weeks ago the full implications of the transfer of the housing and council tax benefit subsidy had not been announced, owing to the apparent wrong-footing of the Department for Work and Pensions by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Concrete advice and information have been noticeably absent.
  As I have said, Rother is a prudent, financially efficient and cautious council, as is clear from the recent comprehensive performance assessment review and confirmed in this year's district audit letter. Initial budget estimates predicted that the council would lose approximately £150,000 through the transfer of grant to the DWP. Owing to the transitional arrangements announced in the DWP circular, that is now expected to be largely repaid, thereby reducing the council tax by about £4, or 3.4 per cent. However, even that cannot be confirmed until the final 2004—04 subsidy claim is approved by external auditors in 2006. Even if the reduction does eventually occur, the effect of the meagre settlement on the district council's ability to continue to deliver high-quality, affordable service is still potentially very damaging to residents of the district. At the very least, the Government should ensure that they honour the spirit of the floor mechanism agreement, and guarantee a minimum cash increase of £143,000 for the next year.
  On top of that quite dreadful support from the Government there came news in December that East Sussex county council would receive an extraordinary £4,000 from the emergency Government fund to help keep council tax bills down. When that figure was first announced, there was widely thought to have been a mistake with the decimal point in the press release. Sadly, however—rubbing salt into the wounds—it proved to be accurate; but the situation was not replicated across the south-east as a whole. Other counties in the region fared quite well. Kent received an extra £8 million, Essex £7.7 million and Hampshire £7 million. Yet again, East Sussex—inexplicably, for it is the poorest county in the south-east—received next to nothing. Ministers in London seem continually to ignore the plight of cash-strapped young families and many hard-up pensioners in my constituency. To make matters worse, the Government refused to meet a cross-party delegation from East Sussex county council to discuss the minuscule amount it had received to limit council tax rises.
  In his correspondence with our district council, the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire also failed to acknowledge the effect of gearing on council taxpayers. If the council's spending next year rises by only about 5 per cent., Rother's council tax will still increase by 9.8 per cent. That is without the imposition of the additional new burdens.
  When the transfer of grant to the DWP is added back, Rother's net budget requirement for 2004–05 has increased by 5.4 per cent., excluding essential growth items. As a matter of necessity the council has frozen all
  1244
  non-salary and contractual budgets for the last three years. That will have an impact on a number of key contracts.
  So why is it necessary for Rother to increase its council tax even further? Once again we return to the new, extra, unfunded demands that the Government are continually making on district councils. First, there is the new licensing regime for liquor. Although the Government intended responsibility for it to be self-financing, finance officers at Rother have done the real sums, and prudently estimate that, at least in the first year, the district council's costs will rise by more than £50,000, or 1.4 per cent. on the council tax bill.
  What else have the Government saddled Rother with? Well, there are inspection costs. No one loves to audit the auditors and inspect the inspectors like new Labour. Over the past few years the council has seen a significant increase in Government inspection costs, particularly those of the Audit Commission, which now amount to more than £150,000 per annum. Until now the council was able to avoid passing all those costs on to the council taxpayer. Unfortunately it now has no alternative but to pass them on, which means increasing the inspection budget by £40,000, or 1 per cent. on the council tax.
  The next point is homelessness. The council has noticed a significant increase in the number of people presenting themselves as homeless over the past two years. Undoubtedly, the change in legislation has accounted for some of the increase, but the real-terms increase is over and above the results of any change in the law and actually reflects the increased cost of housing in what remains a low-wage area. Housing difficulties are on the increase, often exacerbated by people new to the area, and are a real problem, as I regularly see at my surgeries—as, I am sure, does the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) who is in the Chamber—yet the council receives no additional help despite the fact that the cost of bed and breakfast has risen by £58,000 in the last year, an increase of 1.6 per cent. in council tax.
  The Government's drive to modernise and to transfer to e-government is another substantial factor in increased spending. Although the council acknowledges the financial support given by the Government to meet the one-off capital costs of the e-agenda, it comes with a substantial revenue implication for the council. Like many local authorities, Rother is undertaking an extensive programme to replace its legacy of mainframe systems with modern systems capable of delivering services through electronic means.
  I welcome e-government; it gives the public an alternative way to access services but it does not generally replace traditional methods of service delivery. For the time being at least, those extra ongoing costs represent another unfunded burden on local authorities. In 2004—05, an additional £150,000 has been identified to meet the ongoing revenue costs of replacing the council's revenues and benefits system to conform with Government guidelines; that equates to an increase of 4 per cent. in council tax. All other revenue implications of e-government have been funded for efficiency savings. Again, Rother is trying to do its best, in difficult circumstances, to meet Government targets,

  1245
  but as with everything else, that comes at a cost. It must be recognised that Rother is a low-spending efficient council, which is being forced into tax increases primarily due to Government willingness to impose new burdens while refusing to supply the cash to pay for them.
  Inadequate and unfair distribution of Government funding and the imposition of additional unfunded Government requirements is not a defence dreamt up simply by Conservative-controlled councils. As the Minister knows, it was one of the key concerns raised by the Audit Commission in its recent publication, "Council Tax Increases 2003/4—Why were they so high?". Councillors in Rother have called on officers to try to suggest £300,000 of budget savings in a bid to cut the threatened 20 per cent. council tax rise, and are engaged in a highly charged round of public consultation.
  The stark fact is that in the last four years council tax in Rother has risen by 81 per cent. The argument is always made that Rother starts from a low base, and continues to make the lowest charge in East Sussex, but that must be seen in the context that I mapped out earlier. Demographically, we have one of the oldest districts in Britain. It has the highest percentage of residents in the country aged over 85 and the second highest percentage of over-65s, the vast majority of whom are on fixed incomes. Eighty per cent. of the district is an area of outstanding natural beauty and the rural premium means that services cost 30 per cent. more to deliver than in urban areas.
  Any quick analysis of East Sussex authorities demonstrates that the proportionality of funding between council tax and Government support favours the borough urban—councils. For Rother district council, the grant as a percentage of formula spending share was just under 50 per cent., whereas for the boroughs of Eastbourne and Labour-controlled Hastings, it is more than 60 per cent.
  Both borough councils in East Sussex spend above the Government's assumed need to spend. The Government grant allocation system thus appears to favour the more urban councils and fails to recognise rural issues and the additional cost of delivering services to remote areas. On every count, it appears that the people of Rother are short-changed by the Government, and the council is left with the dilemma of either cutting services or increasing council tax.
  My constituents are angry; many of them are desperate. The problem will not go away and no amount of political gloss or statistical spin will change the hard reality that council tax payers in my constituency face this year: yet another huge hike in their bill or devastating service cuts. I appeal to the Minister in good faith to recognise that we have a real problem. Rother's dilemma may not be unique, but that is of little comfort to those affected, so I ask him to take a short time out from his busy schedule to meet the leader and treasurer of Rother district council at the earliest opportunity, to sit down with them and work through the reality of the pressures that they face, which are not of their own making, and to look again at the chronic lack of Government funding for my area.
  11.04 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Phil Hope): I congratulate the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) on securing this debate on local government funding for Rother district council. It gives us a useful opportunity to discuss issues relating to this year's local government finance settlement, and to look at the particular circumstances of Rother.
  Let me start by commenting on our decisions relating to the funding of local government revenue expenditure for next year, which were made following full consultation on our proposals. The hon. Gentleman asked whether I would be prepared to meet a delegation from his authority. The Government have not met representatives from any individual councils or local authorities during this year's consultation process, because we are in the second year of a three-year spending round. Last year was the first year in which we changed the formulae throughout, and we took a number of representations from individual councils. However, this year we did meet representatives of the main types of authorities, including those such as Rother district council, through their representation on the Local Government Association.
  Consultation on the draft settlement ended in January, and up to that point many councils had made written representations. However, the hon. Gentleman should know that Rother district council did not make a representation at any stage in the consultation process. As he knows, Parliament approved the local government finance settlement last week, so the consultation and decision-making processes are now complete.
  The 2002 spending review provided very good news for local authorities, with continued increases in grant over the three-year period of the review. Our priority is, of course, education and personal social services. Shire districts such as Rother depend principally on the environmental, protective and cultural services funding. The settlement for 2004–05 provides a cash increase of 3.8 per cent., in terms of spending on those services. Through the settlements made since we took office in 1997, we have been able to increase the amount of government grant given in total to local authorities by £19.1 billion—a 30 per cent. real-terms increase. I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that that compares with the 7 per cent. cut that occurred in the previous four years, under a Conservative Administration.
  So there can be little argument that we have provided greater levels of investment since 1997–98, and there is general agreement that this settlement provides welcome improvements in the money going to local authorities. We have decided to allow local authorities to reduce council tax discount on second homes and long-term empty homes if they wish, which will provide them with additional revenue-raising powers. They will be able to use the money raised through reducing the second homes discount for the benefit of local communities by providing, for example, affordable housing or transport.
  Gregory Barker: Surely the Minister does not dispute the fact that the grant, as a percentage of the budget, has fallen dramatically—from 63 per cent. in 2001, to 50.23 per cent. in 2004–05.
  Phil Hope: As the hon. Gentleman knows, Rother will receive £5.524 million in general grant in 2004–05—an increase of £202,000, or 3.8 per cent., on a like-for-like basis, compared with 2003–04. That is comparable to the average increase for shire districts of 4 per cent. The new grant distribution system was introduced in 2003–04 following a full-scale review and consultation. The floors and ceilings arrangements that feature in the new system help to provide stability for local government. In 2004–05, Rother will benefit from the protection offered by the floor: it will receive £1.2 million more in grant than it would receive without the support of the floor. In the past seven years, we have been able to provide Rother with an average—I repeat, an average—annual increase in general grant of 4 per cent. There can be no doubt that Rother has benefited from the additional money that we have invested in local government in the past seven years.
  The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the case of East Sussex county council. I have to say that East Sussex is set to receive an increase in formula grants of 4.5 per cent. next year. That is after having received a 5.5 per cent. increase in 2002–03; and a 3.8 per cent. increase in 2003–04.
  I can understand the concerns of the people of Rother, particularly those of pensioners on fixed incomes and others on low incomes, that the settlement will lead the council to impose another large increase in the level of council tax for 2004–05. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that there is no need for the council to do so. Given the grant increases that Rother district council has received since 1997, which I have just spelled out, residents are right to express dismay at the persistently high levels of council tax increase imposed on them and at the proposed level for the forthcoming year.
  In 2002–03 there was a 20.7 per cent. increase for band D tax in Rother; in 2003–04, a 10.1 per cent. increase; and next year, there will be a reported 9.8 per cent. increase. That is simply unacceptable. Given the Government's significant extra investment in public services and the scope for efficiency improvements, it is unacceptable for local authorities to set large increases in council tax. Local authorities, including Rother, can and should deliver council tax increases in low single figures in 2004–05. We have made it clear that we are prepared to use our powers to cap any excessive council tax increases proposed by local authorities for 2004–05. Let there be no doubt that we will use those powers if we have to.
  I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that we are also keen to ensure that all pensioners entitled to help with their council tax bills are claiming council tax benefit. I hope that we can agree on that. If we have to disagree on the funding issues, surely we can agree about the
  1248
  importance of ensuring that pensioners, particularly those on low incomes and fixed incomes, gain from the council tax benefit facilities that are available. We want to ensure that the 1.9 million pensioners who will gain, or gain more, council tax benefit on the introduction of pension credit get the extra help to which they are entitled. The Department for Work and Pensions is therefore actively pursuing ways of supporting local authorities in their statutory duty to promote council tax benefit take-up.
  The hon. Gentleman has not left me much time to tackle some of the detailed points that he made. He voiced concern about the transfer of responsibility for housing benefit and council tax benefit to the Department for Work and Pensions. However, it was local authorities that pressed the Government to make that change. As a result, the Department for Work and Pensions will implement fairer and simpler benefit subsidy rules from next April, which have been devised in full consultation with the local authority associations. Local authorities have been advised how potential impacts should be assessed and there will be a transitional protection scheme for the first three years. We have listened to local government concerns about the initial proposals and have now decided to limit any losses during the first year of the scheme to 0.5 per cent. I hope that that demonstrates to the hon. Gentleman and the people of Rother that we have listened to some of the concerns and responded actively to them.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Licensing Act 2003, fee levels and the potential burdens that may be created. After a long period of consultation, we have enabled the Local Government Association to build its case and we are grateful for its assistance. When the final fee levels are published shortly, we expect to revise our estimates of the overall income generated.
  The timetable for reform is dictated by the date on which Parliament approves the guidance on the fees, which will be announced by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who expects to table the draft guidance for the House's consideration very shortly. The period of transition will commence six months after Parliament approves the guidance and then last for about nine months.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned inspection costs. We understand his concerns, but I have to say that the comprehensive performance assessment has driven many improvements in local government performance and there is widespread support across local government for the benefits that it brings.
  We know that e-government is bringing about new ways of delivering services. It is bringing cost-efficiency savings into local government and we expect to see that happen. I might add—
  The motion having been made after Ten 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 fourteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.

CABINET OFFICE

  Chief Information Officer
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when the Chief Information Officer will be appointed; what the responsibilities of the post will be; and what its reporting relationship will be to(a) other civil servants and (b) Ministers. [151475]

  Mr. Alexander
  The new Head of e-Government (analogous to a private-sector Chief Information Officer) will be based in the Cabinet Office and will report to the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Andrew Turnbull and Minister for the Cabinet Office.

  The responsibilities of the post were set out in a press notice of 15 December 2003 which can be found at www. cabinet-office.gov.uk/news/2003/031215 headofegovt.asp. I will also place a copy of the notice in the Libraries of the House for the interest of Members.

  The detailed timetable for the recruitment exercise has still to be finalised, but the aim is to complete the selection process by April 2004.

  Civil Contingencies
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will take steps to give one co-ordinating body full responsibility for civil contingencies covering all multi-agency aspects. [153043]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Home Secretary has overall charge for UK resilience and chairs the Ministerial Committee responsible for providing co-ordination and oversight covering all multi-agency aspects. Sir David Omand, the Security and Intelligence Co-ordinator, is responsible for the Civil Contingencies Secretariat, and supports the Home Secretary in this work.

  Civil Servants
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what research has been carried out since 1997 into the reasons civil servants leave the Civil Service; and if he will make a statement. [153704]

  Mr. Alexander
  My Department publishes aggregate data on causes for leaving the Civil Service in the annual publication "Civil Service Statistics". Copies are placed in the Library of the House and can be accessed at www.civil-service.gov.uk/statistics.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the cost of recruitment of civil servants was for each financial year from 1996 to the present, broken down by Department. [153705]
  1134W
  Mr. Alexander
  Departments have delegated responsibility for almost all recruitment to the Civil Service. The Cabinet Office does not collect centrally the information requested and could only do so at disproportionate cost.

  Consultations
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list those individuals and organisations(a) to whom (i) his Department, (ii) its executive agencies and (iii) the non-departmental public bodies for which his Department is responsible sent a copy of the consultations (A) Private action, public benefit: A review of charities and the wider not for profit sector, (B) The future of emergency planning in England and Wales: a discussion document and (C) Towards equality and diversity: implementing the employment and race directives and (b) from whom each received a response in each case. [151655]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Government are committed to ensuring that all relevant stakeholders are identified and involved in consultation exercises.

  The Strategy Unit report "Private Action, Public Benefit" was published on 25 September 2002. More than 1,000 copies were sent to interested parties. A further 300 people were sent e-mail links to the document. The pdf version of the SU report has been downloaded more than 45,000 times from the SU website: www.strategy.gov.uk.

  Following publication of the report, members of the SU project team and the Home Office's Active Community Unit took part in more than 50 consultation events around the country. Copies of the report were also distributed at these events.

  Responses were received from around 1,100 individuals and organisations. A summary of their comments— and the Government's response to the report—are contained in the Home Office document "Charities and. Not-for-Profits: A Modern Legal Framework", published in July 2003.

  The following organisations were sent copies of "The future of emergency planning in England and Wales: a discussion document".

  Local Government Association (LGA)

  Local Authorities in England and Wales

  Emergency Planning Society (EPS)

  Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO)

  Police Forces in England and Wales

  British Transport Police

  Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association (CACFOA)

  Fire Brigades in England and Wales

  Ambulance Service Association (ASA)

  Ambulance Service in England and Wales

  Health Authorities

  Coroners Offices and Pathology Service

  Northern Ireland Executive

  Scottish Executive

  National Assembly for Wales

  Other Government Departments

  Health and Safety Executive (HSE)

  1135W

  Environment Agency

  Government Offices for the Regions

  OFWAT

  OFTEL

  OFGEM

  Rail Regulators

  CAA, UK Airlines EP Group and Airports

  Educational Establishments

  The Armed Forces

  Responses were received from interested stakeholder groups, including:

  Local Authorities

  Emergency Services

  Health Bodies

  Utilities

  Transport

  Professional Bodies

  Lobby Groups

  Academic Institutes

  Multi-Agency Groups

  Private Companies

  Individuals

  I have placed a full list of responses in the Libraries of the House.

  "Towards equality and diversity: implementing the employment and race directives" is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office 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. [148638]

  Mr. Alexander
  It is not possible to obtain this information without incurring disproportionate costs.

  Cabinet Office is committed to managing sick absence effectively. It has in place robust procedures that reflect the recommendations of the 1998 report "Working Well Together—Managing Attendance in the Public Sector". These are supported by comprehensive in-house guidance and training for managers and individuals. The department is making good progress towards its target for reduced sickness absence of 30 per cent. in 2010 compared with 1998 levels.

  Strategy Unit Fisheries Report
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the cost of the Strategy Unit's report on the UK fishing industry was; how many copies of the report will be produced; how many people have worked on the project; and when the report will be made public. [153992]

  Mr. Alexander
  The project is still ongoing. The Strategy Unit's budget for this financial year is £4.7 million, which funds a range of projects and other work.
  1136W
  The normal print run for Strategy Unit reports is 2,000, though the report and supporting documents will also be on the Strategy Unit website.

  A total of 12 people worked on the project, and six of these were engaged on a full-time basis.

  The report will be published shortly.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Communications Regulation
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what arrangements she has put in place for(a) monitoring and (b) reducing the administrative costs of communications regulation through (i) the running costs of Ofcom and (ii) the compliance costs of business. [153035]

  Estelle Morris
  Parliament has given Ofcom a large degree of financial autonomy appropriate to its independent status. That is normal with sectoral regulators and especially important in media regulation. Nevertheless it is also subject to a number of measures to ensure proper scrutiny of its expenditure, and that its own costs, and the compliance costs of regulated businesses, are no more than necessary to fulfil its statutory duties under the Communications Act 2003.

  Ofcom is required to set its charges in a transparent way and justify them to industry. In exercising all its statutory functions, Ofcom is also required to have due regard, among other things, to the desirability of encouraging investment and innovation, and to the principles of good regulation such as consultation, proportionality and selectivity—all of which are very relevant to compliance costs and overall expenditure. In addition, where it plans to introduce significant new regulation, Ofcom is required to carry out and publish an assessment of the likely impact of the measure, allowing a period for consultation, and to take account of responses to it.

  Furthermore, Ofcom must produce an annual report and accounts (the latter subject to certification and report by the Comptroller and Auditor General) to be laid before Parliament; its activities can be scrutinised by the Public Accounts Committee and the relevant departmental Parliamentary Select Committees, and by the National Audit Office; its use of public funds is governed by, among other things, a financial memorandum agreed with the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and for Culture, Media and Sport; and its expenditure is subject to resource 'caps' agreed with HM Treasury.

  Lottery
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much funding Cunninghame, South has received from National Lottery grants in each of the past five years. [153216]
  1137W
  Estelle Morris
  In the last five years, starting from 1 January 1999, Cunninghame, South has been awarded grants to the value of:

  Amount awarded (£)

  1999

  1,320,060

  2000

  195,087

  2001

  746,145

  2002

  986,707

  2003

  1,753,870

  Total

  5,001,869

  These numbers are derived from the Department's database of lottery awards, which is based on information supplied by the distributing bodies.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total sales were for National Lottery tickets in Cunninghame, South, in each of the past five years. [153217]

  Estelle Morris
  The available information is set out in a table prepared by Camelot, listing sales of National Lottery tickets by postcode area since the Lottery's launch, The table was placed in the Libraries of both Houses on 9 December 2003 in response to a written parliamentary question from the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) on 18 November 2003,Official Report, column 764.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total sales of National Lottery tickets in(a) Chorley and (b) Lancashire were in each of the past five years. [153855]

  Estelle Morris
  The available information is set out in a table prepared by Camelot, listing sales of National Lottery tickets by postcode area since the Lottery's launch. The table was placed in the Libraries of both Houses on 9 December 2003 in response to a written parliamentary question from the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) on 18 November 2003,Official Report, column 764.

  Transmitter Mast (Worksop)
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the transmitter mast in Worksop will be upgraded so the local residents can receive Freeview. [152370]

  Estelle Morris
  Broadcasters, through contracts with transmission operators, are responsible for maintaining the terrestrial network. But until the analogue signals are turned off, there will not be enough frequencies available to enable all the transmitters to carry digital terrestrial services. We believe that digital switchover could be achieved between 2006 and 2010, subject to our affordability and availability criteria being met, but we can't be more precise at this stage about which transmitters will be converted by any given date.
  1138W

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what research he has commissioned into abuses of human rights in Bangladesh, with particular reference to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. [153524]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID and the FCO actively monitor human rights in Bangladesh and take account of the concerns of marginalised communities through research related to funding development programmes. HMG and our post in Dhaka are aware of the concerns over the pressure being put on the Ahmadiyyas. The FCO has raised these concerns on several occasions, most importantly through the EU Troika, with senior officials of the Foreign Ministry and with senior MPs of the ruling party. Gareth Thomas, PUSS, raised the issue of Human Rights with the Minister of Foreign Affairs during his visit to Bangladesh in late January.

  Iraq
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what(a) aid and (b) compensation is available for residents of Baghdad whose properties were destroyed by American rockets in the war. [152537]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have been asked to reply.

  Questions of aid or compensation by other coalition partners are a matter for them.

  Tuberculosis
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of UK overseas aid in 2003–04 goes towards combating tuberculosis. [152974]

  Hilary Benn
  The UK plays a major role in combating tuberculosis worldwide through its support for Global Partnerships, such as the Global Fund, and country programmes. Our strategy is to ensure a more coordinated and collaborative international and national effort in TB control. Much of our assistance is given through support to country health sector programmes or as General Budget Support to developing countries. We give significant core contributions to international agencies such as the World Health Organisation, some of which is used to tackle the disease. As a result it is not possible to disaggregate our bilateral expenditure on tuberculosis in the manner requested.

SCOTLAND

  Whisky
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland pursuant to his answer of 3 February 2004,Official Report, column 757W, on the whisky industry, what previous meetings he has had with representatives of the Scottish whisky industry; and what representations he has made to the Treasury on the impact of introducing a tax strip for the sector. [153934]
  1139W
  Mrs. McGuire
  My right hon. Friend has regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues on a wide range of issues affecting Scotland.

  Aside from the meetings referred to in my answer of 3 February 2004, Official Report, column 757W, Scotland Office, Ministers have had no other formal meetings with representatives of the Scotch whisky industry.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Pensions
  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to help people make informed choices about their pensions in retirement. [153189]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The recent Command Paper CM6111 "Simplicity, security and choice: Informed Choices for working and saving", published on 3 February 2004, sets out our programme to help people make informed decisions about retirement. The strategy that I have set out is based around three steps—activation, education and information. We are determined to:Enable people to make the most of pension provision and encourage availability of the right pension products;
  Raise people's awareness of their options and improve financial education; and Ensure that everyone has high-quality, accurate and timely information.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the effect on expenditure on the basic state pension in each of the next five years of ascribing to all persons below state pension age a full year's national insurance contributions in lieu of their actual contributions in all future years. [150456]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is in the table.

  £ million

  Additional expenditure on basic state pension

  2005–06

  20

  2006–07

  50

  2007–08

  100

  2008–09

  160

  2009–10

  220

  Notes:

  1. The costs for the first few years are shown and are very low because they relate to current public expenditure. The effect on the underlying fiscal position is larger because future public spending liabilities are being increased in respect of people of all ages.

  2. The costs given are the gross costs to the nearest £10 million, in 2003–04 price terms, using 2004 benefit rates.

  3. The costs assume that the first year for which the contributions will be credited is 2004–05.

  4. The costs take into account that men aged 60 to 64 are automatically awarded national insurance credits for those years irrespective of whether they are in work or not. These credits count towards state pension entitlement.

  Unemployment Action Teams
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the role of action teams in reducing unemployment. [153191]
  1140W
  Mr. Browne
  Action teams are having a positive impact on the lives of disadvantaged people, in some of the most economically deprived areas of the country, and have already been successful in helping nearly 100,000 people into work.

  I would like to thank my hon. Friend for the consistent support he has shown for the action team operating in his constituency, which has helped nearly 1,000 disadvantaged people across North West Wales into work, contributing to the fall in unemployment in his constituency of 41 per cent. since 1997.

  Working Tax Credit
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the application of working tax credit to(a) parents with care and (b) absent parents. [153192]

  Mr. Pond
  In the new scheme only the non-resident parent's income is taken into account; the parent with care's income is ignored.

  In the old scheme a parent with care who receives working tax credit is treated as having no assessable income.

  Generally speaking, in both schemes, a non-resident parent's working tax credit counts as income. (The exception is where his current partner is the principal earner).

  New Deal
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent representations he has received on the impact of the new deal for young people on the level of economic inactivity among young people. [153193]

  Mr. Browne
  We have received a number of representations from hon. Members, through Parliamentary Questions and correspondence.

  I am happy to say that our new deal for young people programme has been hugely successful in helping to virtually eradicate long-term youth unemployment, helping more than 460,000 young people into work, including nearly 400 in the hon. Member's constituency.

  Independent evaluation shows that the new deal has not only helped to increase youth employment, but has also benefited the economy to the tune of £500 million a year.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of pensioners are entitled to means-tested benefits. [153194]

  Mr. Pond
  We estimate that around half of all pensioner households across Great Britain are eligible for Pension Credit and other income related benefits and stand to gain on average £400 a year. Our priority is to target money on the poorest pensioners and there are already 1.4 million pensioner households on Pension Credit who are getting more money than they did before.
  1141W
  The way we are assessing pensioners' incomes in Pension Credit is vastly different from the stigmatising weekly means tests of the past. We want all those pensioners who are eligible to apply for their entitlement. It would be a great shame if the phrase `means-test' was allowed to get in the way of pensioners applying for what is rightfully theirs.

  Departmental Files (Security)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to enhance the security of files in departmental file stores. [153188]

  Mr. Browne
  Currently, satisfactory arrangements are in place to ensure the security of files in DWP file stores operated by both departmental staff and our external supplier. The future contractual arrangements for delivery of this service, which we expect to announce soon, will take full account of the need to maintain security of information and the physical security of

  2001–021

  2002–031

  2003 to date2

  Staff leaving

  Staff recruited

  Staff leaving

  Staff recruited

  Staff leaving

  Staff recruited

  Portsmouth

  24

  34

  52

  35

  34

  3

  Southampton

  20

  32

  40

  17

  40

  11

  Isle of Wight

  4

  46

  14

  34

  8

  14

  12001–02 and 2002–03 figures are from 1 April to 31 March.

  22003 figures are from 1 April to 30 November.

  Note:

  Figures are for Jobcentre Plus, The Pension Service, Child Support Agency and Corporate Centre staff based in the offices in question.

  Source:

  FAMIS/Rebus data extracts

  Housing Benefit Department (Swale)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what additional resources he will offer to resolve the on—going problems in the housing benefit department at Swale Borough Council. [153728]

  Mr. Pond
  The Government are investing £200 million over this and the next two financial years to help local authorities make improvements in their administration of housing benefit. Swale Borough Council has been awarded funding for a training officer post, and we will be pleased to consider additional bids from the council.

  In addition, and in recognition of the problems experienced by Swale Borough Council the Department has provided free consultancy assistance from its Help Team.

  The Help Team worked with the council for six weeks during the period 29 September 2003 to 12 December 2003. During that time assistance was provided to the council in the development of a project plan to clear its backlog of outstanding benefits work. In addition, work was also undertaken on the introduction of a communications strategy, a review of existing policies and procedures plus a review of how benefits work and staff are organised.
  1142W
  departmental files. We will closely manage and monitor the new contract to ensure that this remains the case.

  Departmental Leaflets
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what criteria his Department uses when deciding whether a leaflet which it publishes is to be made available only on its website. [149558]

  Mr. Browne
  The Department for Work and Pensions does not produce any leaflets or other publications in web—only format at present.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many permanent staff have left and not been replaced in his Department's offices in(a) Portsmouth, (b) Southampton and (c) the Isle of Wight in each of the last three years. [151632]

  Maria Eagle
  The information requested is in the table.

  Work in all these areas is continuing and is being regularly monitored by the Help Team. The results of this monitoring show that the council has made good progress in clearing its backlog of work and is currently ahead of its target for full clearance.

  Post Office Accounts
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on progress in moving manual pension payments to direct payment, with particular reference to Post Office accounts. [153631]

  Mr. Pond
  The overall move to direct payment is progressing well.

  The conversion process, from manual payments to payments credited directly in to bank accounts, started with invitation letters being sent to some customers in October 2002 and involves contacting approximately 14.25 million customers. We have already written to 8 million customers and so far over 3.5 million have provided their bank account details, and over 2 million have requested a Post Office card account.

  Key figures on the progress of conversion to direct payment are available in the Library, updated every four weeks.

  Winter Fuel Payment
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of pensioners entitled to
  1143W
  the winter fuel payment in (a) Norfolk and (b) Great Britain had received the payment by (i) 1 January and (ii) 20 January; and if he will make a statement. [153033]

  Malcolm Wicks
  It is not possible to provide payment figures separately for Norfolk. Neither can we provide an estimate of the percentage of eligible people in receipt of a winter fuel payment using DWP administrative data because we do not have complete information on household circumstances and payments are based on household composition.

  By 1 January 11,570,389 winter fuel payments had been made in Great Britain for winter 2003–04. This figure had not changed at 20 January.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Cod
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment has been made of the effect of the extension piece on a demersal trawl on the selectivity of the cod end. [150920]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Under the 2001 Fishing Industry/Science partnership funded by SEERAD, trials were carried out with a pair seine team to assess the effect of very long extensions on catch composition. Two cases were investigated using the alternate haul method; one with an extension of 200 meshes, the other of 500 meshes long. No significant differences were found in the catches or discards for haddock or whiting. No significant amounts of juvenile cod were retained.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what criteria her Department uses when deciding whether a leaflet which it publishes is to be made available only on its website. [149555]

  Alun Michael
  Leaflets and other printed material are normally made available in electronic form via Defra's website, at the same time as they are published or circulated. Where documents are only published via the website (and not in printed form), this is based on an assessment of factors such as the audience for the document, the nature of the material and its anticipated lifetime, whether speed of distribution electronically is particularly important, and cost—efficiency issues.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment has been made of whether the behaviour of fish species is constant, with particular reference to escape strategies when confronted with a towed trawl. [150901]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Fish reaction depends on the fish species, individual physiology, swimming capacity and condition. Throughout the capture process, the density of fish will be important in determining the reaction of individual fish. The environmental conditions such as temperature, light conditions and seabed type will also have an effect. Fishing gear will also influence fish reaction, mainly through the visual stimuli it creates 1144W
  relative to the background. These fundamental mechanisms of fish reaction may be relatively constant whereas individual reactions will be determined entirely by the particular circumstances to which a fish is subjected at any given moment.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs where the primary(a) sandeel, (b) cod and (c) haddock fisheries in the North Sea are. [149134]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Sandeel fishing occurs on grounds where sediment type and oceanography facilitate high concentrations of sandeels. These grounds mainly occur on the western edge of the Dogger Bank, and around the Fisher Bank. A sandeel fishing area off the Firth of Forth is currently closed.

  Cod fishing is more widespread. It occurs in the Southern Bight from the eastern Channel to the Dutch coast, off north east coast England from the Humber to Tyne, in part of the German Bight, and in a wide arc from the Skagerrak along the edge of the Norwegian trench to the northern North Sea and the waters east and west of Orkney and Shetland.

  Haddock fishing is also widespread, from the Skagerrak to a large part of the northern North Sea, down the western side of the North Sea from Shetland and Orkney to the east coast of Scotland, as far as north east England. Haddock are sparse south of the Dogger Bank.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the significance is of the catch per unit effort index; and what part it plays in estimating fish stocks. [150247]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Catch per unit of fishing effort is an index that is approximately proportional to the abundance of the fishable stock. A time series of such data could describe stock trends, provided that the index is representative of the whole stock, and is not biased by year to year changes in vessel efficiency, selectivity, or fishing strategy. Such bias can affect the catch per effort of commercial vessels, whereas the index derived from research surveys that fish standard stations using a standard gear year on year is not affected in this way, and is therefore more suitable for tuning ICES stock assessments.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what techniques are available to fishermen to(a) minimise the catch of juvenile fish and (b) maximise the size of fish caught in demersal trawls. [150249]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  For optimal stock exploitation each species needs to be caught at a particular size and age, dependent mainly on its growth rate and maturity. The exploitation rate for each species is determined by the design of the gear used to fish it as well as the effort exerted on the stock. Technical Conservation Measures regulating the design of gear are the main method of limiting the catch of juvenile fish. Such controls are imposed by limits on codend mesh size and twine size, the number of open meshes around the codend circumference, the use of lifting bags, the length of
  1145W
  extension and the use of attachments. Also selective devices such as square mesh panels and grids may be mandatory.

  Limits on the capture of larger fish are imposed by restrictions on effort or quotas. It is not necessarily optimal to take the largest fish from the sea as these may be the most successful reproductively.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of(a) visual and (b) aural devices attached to trawls to improve the selectivity of fishing in demersal fisheries; [150250]

  (2) what assessment her Department has made of the relative importance of (a) aural and (b) visual triggers in the escape responses of ground fish in relation to the approach of a towed trawl. [150898]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Since the 1950s, studies have shown that vision is very important in determining fish reaction to gears at all stages of the capture process. A variety of experiments have been carried out at the FRS Marine Laboratory, for example on horizontal panels to separate species within a trawl or the use of different coloured twine in escape panels. These studies suggest that when used appropriately, and under certain circumstances (i.e. where light levels are sufficient for the fish to react) such visual devices can subtly improve selectivity. A review is currently being compiled through the ICES Fishing Technology and Fish Behaviour Working Group of the reactions and behaviour of fish to visual components of fishing gears and the effect on catchability in survey and commercial fishing gears.

  Reactions of fish to aural stimuli are less clear although it is thought that,when they hear threatening sounds, fish adopt a state of heightened awareness such that they may be more ready to react to subsequent visual cues. There has been little research on the use of aural devices to improve selectivity.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessments her Department has made of the effectiveness of turned-mesh netting in(a) improving the escape rate of juvenile fish and (b) reducing the attendant mortality; and what the operational disadvantages are of such netting. [150252]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Turned mesh netting is standard diamond mesh turned through 90". Because of the way the twine is knotted, turned meshes tend to remain wider open when under longitudinal tension than standard meshes. Knot slippage and mesh distortion may occur but these problems might be overcome by heat setting the knots or using double knots. Experiments in the Baltic have suggested that selectivity is improved when using turned mesh netting, i.e. more juvenile fish escape. No long-term trials have been carried out in the North Sea on these options although Seafish Industry Authority are planning trials in 2004 on the use of turned mesh in prawn trawl codends.

  In April 2004, an ICES Working Group will examine all the recent experimental data from the Baltic on turned mesh selectivity to assess the effect of this netting type. The findings will be published. No information is available on the mortality of escapees from such netting.
  1146W
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment has been made of the effect of(a) square knotless netting and (b) knotted diamond-mesh netting used for escape panels on (i) different species, (ii) the proportion of escapees and (iii) the mortality of escapees. [150253]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Square mesh netting is often used in escape panels because diamond mesh netting closes under tension. Diamond mesh netting can be used as square mesh netting by turning it through 45° However, in these circumstances the knots in knotted netting are liable to slip unless specially treated, leading to distortion of the meshes. Certain types of knotless netting have been found to be more stable. Legislation allows either knotted or knotless netting as long as knot slippage does not occur. No information is available comparing the selective properties or the resulting escape mortality of these two netting types used in escape panels.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what facilities exist in the United Kingdom for flume-tank testing of trawl designs to improve the selectivity of fishing; and what facilities exist in(a) Europe and (b) the USA for this purpose. [150294]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  At their Fisheries Development Centre in Hull the Seafish Industry Authority operate the only flume tank in the UK. Similar flume tanks exist in Hirtshals (Denmark), Lorient and Boulogne (France) and St. Johns (Canada). Trawl designs can be tested at towing tank facilities at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (USA).

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what evaluation her Department has made of the suitability of Baltic panels of(a) Danish and (b) Swedish design in North Sea fisheries. [150295]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  A sub-group of the ICES Working Group on Fishing Technology and Fish Behaviour reported on the selectivity of these Baltic panels in comparison with standard diamond mesh codends in 1995 and 1996. A comprehensive study of the selectivity of these devices was also conducted as part of the EU-funded `Bacoma' project and published in 2000. It was found that selectivity for cod was better when the panels were placed in the top panel of the codend. A later joint UK and Danish project was funded by the EU to compare the selective performance of both side and top panels in North Sea fisheries. Cod and haddock selectivity was either as good or better with the top panels.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what she estimates the(a) minimum and (b) expected cod by-catch would be from vessels operating in mixed cod and haddock fisheries, using selective gear (i) designed and (ii) adapted to minimise the cod catch. [150299]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  A range of designs of selective gear could be used to reduce the cod catch in mixed cod and haddock fisheries. The choice of design will depend on the mix of species on the grounds, the species targeted by the fishermen and practical issues such as ease of
  1147W
  handling. Seldom are only cod and haddock caught. A fisherman will choose a design that is practical and gives him an economic return in terms of catch composition for his particular market. In each fishery (e.g. English, Irish, Scottish, Danish, French or Norwegian) fishermen will make different choices of gear design.

  An EU-funded project (Recovery) involving most countries bordering the North Sea is currently developing such gears for several mixed species fisheries in the North Sea (Scottish whitefish, Danish whitefish, English Nephrops and Netherlands/Belgian beam trawl fisheries). The industries in each country are involved closely in these projects through industry liaison groups.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what effect oil and gas(a) rigs and (b) pipelines in the North Sea have on the distribution of (i) cod and (ii) other demersal species. [150309]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Cod, other gadoid fish, and some shellfish, appear to be attracted to pipelines, thus creating higher density aggregations that attract fishermen. Cod may also be attracted to the vicinity of rigs, from which fishermen are excluded.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether her Department has commissioned studies to determine the significance of differences in catch ability between(a) survey trawl gear and (b) commercial trawl gear, with particular reference to catches of monkfish. [150310]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Studies to determine the significance of differences between survey trawl gear and commercial trawl gear have not been commissioned as these gears are used for different purposes.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made on the(a) development and (b) testing of the Eurogrid project; what findings have been released; and what the cost is of the United Kingdom contribution to this project. [150311]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  A whitefish grid system, the Eurogrid, suitable for use on board most North Sea trawlers for demersal towed gear fisheries has been developed and tested. The grid is made of polyamide, a material selected for high elasticity and strength.

  To investigate the selective properties of the Eurogrid, experiments were conducted onboard commercial fishing vessels in all five participating countries (Denmark, France, Norway, Scotland and Sweden). The experiments covered four different species (cod, haddock, whiting, saithe) and five different bar distances. Efforts were made to determine the effective selectivity of the compound gear, consisting of both grid and codend combined, as well as individual components.

  The large variability of vessel and gear sizes, deck layout and gear handling methods between individual national fleets necessitated the use of different experimental designs for measuring selectivity. These differences meant that no final conclusions could be drawn as to the selective properties of the Eurogrid compared to a standard 100 mm diamond meshed
  1148W
  codend. However, the results indicate that they are similar to those of other sorting grids used in bottom trawl.

  The user-friendliness of the Eurogrid (the low weight, flexibility and ability to be wound around a net drum) makes this a good option in fisheries where grids may be made mandatory. Alternatively it could be used on a voluntary basis. To accompany the final report an installation manual explaining to each fishing industry how the grid is fitted into the gear is available in each of the five languages, together with a short videotape describing the project. In the UK the final design of Eurogrid was featured on the Fisheries Research Services (Marine Laboratory) stand at Fishing 2003 in the Scottish Exhibition and Conference Centre, Glasgow. A paper summarising the final report is currently being prepared for a refereed scientific publication.

  The United Kingdom contributed a total of£323,212 to this project, but this was offset by income of £190,000 from the EU under the 5th Framework programme of research.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received from(a) fishermen and (b) their representatives on the accuracy of scientific assessments of the levels of fish stocks; and what assessment she has made of alternative modelling paradigms from non-International Council for the Exploration of the Sea sources. [150316]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Some claim that the assessment methods underestimate the amount of fish in depleted stocks subject to recovery plans, although some also appear to accept the results of the same methods applied to stocks that are either stable or increasing. An alternative 'paradigm', which is not about stock assessment but about how stocks should be managed, has been considered, but we do not accept that in the ocean the remedy to over-fishing is to fish even harder.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether cod migration occurs from the North Sea to the Atlantic fisheries; and whether migration is increased by inter-species competition and pressure on food supplies. [150475]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  There is no scientific evidence that cod move out into the Atlantic fishing areas, or that migrations have been affected by food availability or inter-specific competition.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment her Department has made of the factors that determine whether a fish species will predate on its own spawn; and what measures can be taken to avoid this in commercial fisheries. [150477]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Some species eat the eggs of other fish species, but the literature provides no evidence from around the UK that self-predation of spawn is a significant factor affecting commercial marine species with pelagic eggs.
  1149W
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what evidence her Department has collated on migration of cod stocks(a) to and (b) from the North Sea, and (i) to and (ii) from International Council for the Exploration of the Seas areas IVa and IVb; and what assessment she has made of whether all cod stocks exhibit similar migration patterns. [150486]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Tagging experiments have demonstrated that mature cod aggregate in numerous parts of the North Sea during the winter spawning season, and disperse later to occupy more widely distributed feeding grounds in summer. Most cod stocks exhibit broadly similar annual movement patterns, but their distance and complexity differ considerably between stocks.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what powers Fisheries Regional Advisory Committees will have(a) to decide on the regional total allowable catches for their areas and (b) to designate technical conservation measures; and what enforcement powers they will have. [152169]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) will be advisory bodies and will not at the outset have the power to take management decisions. Nevertheless, they will develop and prove themselves over time. Subject to a review, the role of RACs may strengthen in the future, but any extension of their powers would need to be agreed by Council on the basis of a Commission proposal.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the risk to porpoises in UK waters from fixed seabed fishing nets; and if she will make a statement. [151988]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have carried out extensive research into the by-catch of harbour porpoises in set net fisheries. This research is set our in detail in the UK Small Cetacean By-catch Response Strategy published last year along with recommendations for action to reduce by-catch in these fisheries. I hope to make an announcement shortly on the implementation of this strategy.

  However, to be effective, action to address the by-catch problem is required on the part of all EU member states involved in the fisheries concerned, not just the UK. Discussions are currently taking place on European Commission proposals to protect dolphins and porpoises from injury or death in fishing gear.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with(a) the European Commission and (b) her European Union counterparts on the protection of dolphins from by-catch by trawler nets; and if she will make a statement. [152004]
  1150W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  The importance of reducing dolphin and other small cetacean by-catch has been raised by the UK at ministerial level with the Fisheries Commissioner on a number of occasions and bilaterally with France. In particular, the UK has pressed for the introduction of a observer programme across the EU to broaden the information available about which fisheries, and which vessels, are involved in the dolphin by-catch problem.

  The Commission published, on 24 July 2003, a draft Council regulation concerning the incidental by-catch of cetaceans in fisheries. Discussions on this proposal are currently under way at official level.

  Defra is also continuing to fund work on the deployment of a separator grid to reduce dolphin by-catch in the offshore pair trawl fishery for bass. These trials have demonstrated that separator grids could provide the means to minimise dolphin by-catch in this fishery and the results of this research are being shared with European colleagues.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many salt water fisheries survey vessels, operating in home waters, carry out work for or on behalf of her Department. [149141]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  CEFAS Lowestoft uses two salt water research vessels for fish stock surveys. In addition, under the devolved administrations, stock surveys are carried out by two salt water research vessels in Scotland (SEERAD/FRS), and one research vessel in Northern Ireland (DARDNI). The work of the various vessels is co-ordinated nationally and internationally.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much was spent on fisheries survey vessels carrying out work for or on behalf of her Department in each of the last five financial years. [149142]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The costs of the sea-days used for the several regional surveys of fish stocks carried out by the CEFAS Lowestoft research vessels were as follows:

  Financial year

  £ million

  1998–99

  1.09

  1999–2000

  1.02

  2000–01

  1.25

  2001–02

  1.73

  2000–03

  1.51

  This does not include the cost of other sea-going studies by CEFAS vessels.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the implications are of fish categorised as grey fish being landed for the(a) accuracy of catch landing data and (b) estimation of fish stocks. [150921]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Landings are an important factor in calculating fish mortality (the amount of fish taken from the sea) which forms an integral part of stock assessment.
  1151W
  The amount of fish discarded at sea is another factor. The quality of data will impact on forecasting certainty and scientific advice on the state of fish stocks. It does not follow however that higher than recorded landings mean that individual fish stocks are in a healthier state.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment has been made of the amount by which it would be safe to increase haddock quotas in(a) tonnage and (b) percentage terms above 2003 levels in ICES areas IVa and IVb if other fish stocks were disregarded. [150855]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  For this stock, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) expresses the single species exploitation boundary as the precautionary level of fishing effort (Fpa). ICES did not make a specific forecast for 2004 because of the difficulty of estimating the biomass levels due to uncertainty about recent landings data. It would not, in any case, be safe to disregard other fish stocks in setting haddock quotas.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of the impact of coastal erosion on the safety of coastally-sited nuclear power stations; and if she will make a statement on the(a) cost and (b) effectiveness of measures being taken in relation to this issue. [152970]

  Mr. Timms
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Health and safety Executive (HSE) license all nuclear power stations under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965. Flood risks, which are enhanced by coastal erosion, are one category of external hazards that HSE require to be addressed in safety cases for nuclear plant.

  Safety cases are prepared by the plant operator. They are scrutinised and then reviewed periodically (at intervals not greater than 10 years) by HSE. This provides an opportunity to ensure that operators are updating their predictions. The cost of HSE reviewing safety cases is recovered from the industry.

  The Office of Science and Technology (OST) is currently performing a major study on the future of flooding and coastal erosion as part of its Foresight programme. The study is looking 30–100 years ahead and is considering the drivers of future risks from flooding and coastal erosion; the magnitude of those risks if existing policies remain unchanged; and possible policy choices which could mitigate future risks.

  The project has evaluated future erosion rates and has found that these are likely to increase in many parts of the UK, although the changes will be very location specific, and are likely to be extremely variable. The project has noted that major assets and infrastructure, including certain nuclear power stations, are on stretches of the coast where the increased erosion could be substantial. However the precise change in risk of such coastal assets will be very dependant on the details of the location. Such analysis is beyond the scope of the project. The Foresight project is due to report its findings in April 2004.
  1152W

  Rural White Paper
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the progress her Department has made in implementing the Rural White Paper. [152617]

  Alun Michael
  The recent review of progress on implementation shows that considerable progress has been made on the programme set out in the Rural White Paper. The creation of Defra, with a clear remit for rural policy, and a Cabinet Committee on Rural regeneration has strengthened the rural agenda significantly.

  Copies of the recent White Paper Review are available in the Library of the House. It show that the vision continues to command widespread support. Evidence from our Rural Research Centre—established by Defra and led by Birkbeck College—provides a clean and firm basis for refreshing our rural policy.

  Progress in delivering the commitments in the Rural White Paper is set out at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/ruralwp/timetable.htm. The present plan shows progress to 31 August 2003. An updated plan showing progress to 31 December 2003 will shortly be on the Defra website at the same address.

  Details of the Rural White Paper Review can be seen at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/rwpreview/ default. Htm

  Further information about the Rural Research Centre is available at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/latest/2004/ruralwhite-0104.htm

  Scottish White Fish Fleet
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what measures may be taken, in terms of gear design, to enhance selectivity when fishing in a mixed white fish fishery to(a) optimise the haddock catch, and (b) minimise the cod by-catch; [149120]

  (2) what escape strategy is adopted by (a) cod and (b) haddock in the North Sea grounds when confronted by a trawl net; [149139]

  (3) what technical measures, in terms of fishing gear design and operating procedures, can be applied to minimise cod by-catch in prawn fisheries; [150297]

  (4) what assessment her Department has made of raised footrope trawls as a means of reducing cod by-catch in mixed fisheries where the target species is haddock. [150488]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Considerable research is going on in Europe to find solutions to the mixed fishery problem. Depending on the season and area, species such as cod, haddock, whiting, saithe, flatfish and Nephrops can be caught at the same time. In the waters round the UK, different solutions in terms of gear design may be required in Scottish, Irish, English or Danish fisheries, depending on the species present and their commercial importance to the fishermen.

  Observations of fish reactions in and around trawls by research scientists have shown that there are species specific behaviours and characteristics which may provide mechanisms for separation or exclusion.

  1153W
  Haddock and, to a lesser extent, whiting tend to rise in the mouth of a trawl as they tire. Cod, flatfish, monkfish and Nephrops keep low. Raising the footrope of the trawl or the use of semi-pelagic fishing gear may allow cod to escape under the net but other species may also be lost.

  The European Commission is currently funding two major research projects which aim to find solutions in mixed whitefish fisheries and in mixed whitefish/Nep/irops fisheries in the North Sea and Irish Sea. A key feature of this work is the close collaboration between fishermen's organisations, commercial skippers, netmakers and the UK fisheries institutes. The aim is to create solutions to these complex problems which are effective, practical, enforceable and acceptable to fishermen.

  Sudden Oak Death
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she has taken to ensure that plant and timber imports are free from sudden oak death. [149113]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Plant Health (Great Britain) Order 1993 (SI 1993/1320, as amended) sets out the controls on the import, movement and keeping of plants within the EU. The Order requires all plants entering the UK from third countries to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate and are subject to inspection at import. For trade within the EU, specific disease control measures are applied at the place of production and plant passports may be issued that travel with consignments allowing their free movement between member states. From May 2002 measures to control the movement of plants susceptible to Phytophthora ramorum into and within the UK where introduced under the Plant Health (Phytophthora ramorum) (England) Order 2002. Following the agreement of community wide measures this Order was superseded in November 2002, by the Plant Health (Phytophthora ramorum) (England) (No. 2) Order 2002 (SI 2002 No. 2573). The latter applied specific disease control measures at the place of production to rhododendrons and viburnums, the two types of plant which have been most often found to be infected in Europe.

  Findings of Phytophthora ramorum in imported and UK origin plants are of concern and inspections at UK nurseries and ports of entry are to be stepped up to ensure that all consignments of plants moved into and within the UK are free from Phytophthora ramorum and meet plant passport requirements. Any consignment found to be infected, or not to have the correct documentation, will, as now, be destroyed.

  The regulations controlling imports of wood and wood products are set out in the Plant Health (Forestry) (Great Britain) Order 1993 (SI 1993/1283, as amended). These require that imports of wood of oak from North American countries are treated to protect against, in particular, another fungal organism Ceratocystis fagacearum, the cause of Oak wilt disease. The Forestry Commission concluded that these controls are effective against Phytophthora ramorum but that they needed to be extended to bring under regulation wood from other trees that are known to host this pathogen and which originate in the USA. The Forestry Commissioners therefore implemented emergency measures in June 2002 by way of the Plant Health (Phytophthora
  1154W
  ramorum) (Great Britain) Order 2002 (SI 2002 No. 1478). This Order was superseded in November 2002, to implement the European Community measures against Phytophthora ramorum, by the Plant Health (Phytophthora ramorum) (Great Britain) (No. 2) Order 2002 (SI 2002 No. 2589).

  The Forestry Commission enforces the controls on wood and wood products through its system of import inspections carried out at ports of entry.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) businesses, (b) landowners and (c) others have had all or some of their plant or tree stocks destroyed as a result of an outbreak of sudden oak death in the last two years. [151952]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  To categorise businesses, landowners and others would be misleading as there may be a cross over in some areas. For example a private landowner may also open their property to the public as a business. In the last two years, there have been 302 outbreak premises in England and Wales, 263 at nurseries and other retail outlets and 39 at established gardens, woods and other wild planting areas. All those on whom notices have been served have destroyed infected material. Others have done so voluntarily.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many claims, and of what total value, her Department has received for compensation for outbreaks of sudden oak death from(a) commercial nurseries, (b) landowners and (c) others in each of the last 24 months for which records are available; [151953];

  (2) how many claims for compensation for sudden oak death have been settled; and what payments have been made during the last two years. [151954]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Only one claim for compensation as been received in respect of destroyed stock following the finding of "Phytophthora ramorum" at a commercial nursery. We are unable to disclose precise details of this claim for legal reasons, but we can confirm this claim is still under consideration. Plant disease campaigns over many years have not incorporated compensation for the destruction of affected plants. Our position has been that the limited resources of the plant health service are better deployed in detecting and identifying outbreaks, and in carrying out research on risks and risk management measures. However, we have recently received an approach from industry organisations wishing to discuss possible risk-sharing mechanisms to avoid disproportionate losses to individual enterprises when action has to be taken against plant pests or diseases. We welcome this opportunity to explore the available options. The outcome of these ongoing discussions could have an effect on any individual claims we receive.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what(a) staff and (b) resources of (i) the Plant Health and Seeds Inspectorate and (ii) other departmental bodies are deployed to detect and control outbreaks of sudden oak death in the UK. [151955]
  1155W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  Defra's 75 Plant Health and Seeds Inspectors are already employed for about 20 per cent. of their time on inspection and surveillance duties related to Phytophthora ramorum, known in the USA as sudden oak death. Therefore, although there is no specific budget allocation, this amounts to an expenditure of approximately £1.8 million in 2003–04.

  In response to the growing number of findings of this pathogen in England and Wales, Defra is redeploying around 20 additional staff to assist the Inspectorate in undertaking extra inspections at production nurseries, wild areas and ports of entry. They will be supplemented by the recruitment of six additional full-time Inspectors for 2004–2005. This is part of a package of measures announced on 4 December.

  Defra is also funding a substantial increase in sample diagnoses undertaken by the Central Science Laboratory (CSL), an executive agency of Defra, which is estimated to cost in excess of £750,000 to the end of 2004–2005. CSL is also involved in ongoing research into "Phytophthora ramorum" to the value of £370,000.

  The Forestry Commission (FC) has redirected about 23 staff onto a woodland survey in England and Wales, to be completed by April 2004, which will help us to assess whether Phytophthora ramorum is present in the wider environment. FC will be contributing £50,000 to CSL to fund diagnostics in support of this survey. Resources have also been redirected within the Forest Research Agency (FRA) into projects designed to help us better understand the disease. From January 2004 FRA is responsible for the co-ordination of an EU funded research project on "P. ramorum".

  In the devolved administrations the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) 5 Plant Health Inspectors already spend approximately 20–25 per cent. of their time on "Phytophthora ramorum" inspection and sampling duties. From January 2004 this team has been brought up to complement with a newly trained inspector. Although there is no specific budget dedicated to Phytophthora ramorum inspections, the total amount to an expenditure for 2003–04 is approximately £90,000.

  Seven Forestry Officers have been trained and, from January 2004, are spending approximately 10 per cent. of their time on Phytopthora. ramorum inspection and sampling work, primarily on DARD Forestry Service and private woodland sites with a budget of approximately £65,000. In addition, a Principal Scientific Officer is spending approximately 25 per cent. of his time in analysing samples for "P. ramorum". The budget for this work is approximately £50,000.

  For 2003–04 the number of Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department staff spending part of their time on detection and control of "Phytophthora ramorum" is seven, including one scientific officer. The total management plan resource employed in this work for 2003–04, to date, is £37,626.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent measures her Department has taken to ensure that plants and seeds infected with sudden oak death are not imported into the UK. [151956]
  1156W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Plant Health (Great Britain) Order 1993 (SI 1993/1320, as amended) sets out the controls on the import, movement and keeping of plants within the EU. The Order requires all plants entering the UK from third countries to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate and are subject to inspection at import. For trade within the EU, specific disease control measures are applied at the place of production and plant passports may be issued that travel with consignments allowing their free movement between member states. From May 2002 measures to control the movement of plants susceptible to Phytophthora ramorum into and within the UK where introduced under the Plant Health "(Phytophthora ramorum)" (England) Order 2002. Following the agreement of community wide measures this Order was superseded in November 2002, by the Plant Health (Phytophthora ramorum) (England) (No. 2) Order 2002 (SI 2002 No. 2573). The latter applied specific disease control measures at the place of production to rhododendrons and viburnums, the two types of plant which have been most often found to be infected in Europe.

  Findings of "Phytophthora ramorum" in imported and UK origin plants are of concern and inspections at UK nurseries and ports of entry are to be stepped up to ensure that all consignments of plants moved into and within the UK are free from Phytophthora ramorum and meet plant passport requirements. Any consignment found to be infected, or not to have the correct documentation, will, as now, be destroyed.

  Whale and Dolphin Conservation
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether she has received a copy of the joint report by Greenpeace and the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, entitled The Net Effect. [150882]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Department has received a copy of the joint report "The Net Effect". I share Greenpeace and the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society concern about the levels of cetacean bycatch in fisheries. Indeed we have carried out extensive research into this issue and produced a UK strategy for the reduction of small cetacean bycatch.

  Meaningful action to address the bycatch problem requires action on the part of all EU Member States involved in the fisheries concerned, not just the UK. Discussions are currently taking place on European Commission proposals to protect dolphins and small cetaceans from injury or death in fishing gear.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Cote d'Ivoire
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to assist the peace process in Cote d'Ivoire; and if he will make a statement. [153350]

  Mr. Mullin
  The UK fully supports the Linas Marcoussis Agreement (LMA) as the basis for sustainable peace in Côte d'Ivoire. Our engagement has included £4 million to help fund regional peacekeepers
  1157W
  and £800,000 in humanitarian aid. We welcome the progress made in the peace process since December 2003. We continue to urge all parties to proceed quickly with full implementation of the LMA, including the programme of disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration. We are supporting the early deployment of a UN peacekeeping operation to Côte d'Ivoire to assist this.

  Ethiopia
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made in the last 12 months of human rights in Ethiopia. [153343]

  Mr. Mullin
  We continue to have concerns about the human rights situation in Ethiopia. In the Memorandum of Understanding we signed with Ethiopia in January 2003, the Government of Ethiopia made a commitment to protect the full range of human rights including economic and social rights of all Ethiopians, especially the poor. We are assisting the implementation of this commitment through our support for Ethiopia's poverty reduction strategy and through regular dialogue with the Ethiopian Government, as well as carefully monitoring their performance.

  EU Enlargement
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 27 January 2004.Official Report, column 148, if the Government will introduce a seven-year transition period for the free movement of workers from countries joining the EU on 1 May 2004. [152968]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government's policy on free movement of workers after accession of the new member states on 1 May 2004 remains as set out in my answer of 27 January 2004.

  The Government will be monitoring the effect of the free movement of workers on the UK labour market and in the unexpected event of a large influx of workers to the UK, which threatens the level of employment or standard of living in a particular region or occupation, it would re-impose restrictions on workers.

  Iran
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on the number of(a) injuries and (b) deaths which occurred among the population of Shahr-e Babak in the southern province of Kerman in Iran in January as a result of police and military action; and if he will make a statement. [152924]

  Mr. Rammell
  Iran's official media have reported that four people were killed and 40 were injured on 24 January in clashes between law enforcement forces and striking workers at a copper factory in Shahr-e Babak. President Khatemi is reported to have ordered an investigation.

  We are following the situation closely.
  1158W

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Sir Jeremy Greenstock will attend the planned meeting between the Iraqi Government Council and United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, on 19 January 2004. [149607]

  Mr. Rammell
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the late response. Sir Jeremy Greenstock did attend.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to support the highest possible level of Kurdish independence and self-determination within a federal administration for Iraq. [153118]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Government are committed to maintaining the territorial integrity of Iraq. The Government have no preferred model of federalism in Iraq. These are issues that the Iraqis need to decide among themselves during the constitutional convention scheduled for 2005.

  Publicity Campaigns
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much his Department spent on(a) advertising and publicity and (b) information campaigns in 2001–02. [152980]

  Mr. Mullin
  To provide a breakdown on spend for advertising and publicity, and information campaigns in the form requested would incur disproportionate costs. However, the total spend on all three activities in 2001–02 was £2,558,570. The major part of these costs was for generic publications, which were made available to all Foreign and Commonwealth Office Departments and overseas posts.

  In addition, the spend on recruitment advertising for 2001–02 was £2,791,659.

  Somaliland
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to encourage the EU to recognise the Republic of Somaliland. [153449]

  Mr. Mullin
  We have no immediate plans to encourage the EU to recognise an independent Somaliland.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to encourage the United Nations to assist in settling the disagreement between the state of Somaliland and the territory of Puntland concerning Las Anod. [153450]

  Mr. Mullin
  I share the hon. Member's concern about recent hostilities between Somaliland and Puntland and registered my anxieties with Somaliland foreign affairs spokesperson Edna Adan when I met her in Addis Ababa on 19 January. I understand that the two sides have drawn back and the traditional leaders and elders in the area are working hard to find a peaceful settlement. We see no need for UN intervention.
  1159W
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to provide assistance for parliamentary elections in the Republic of Somaliland. [153471]

  Mr. Mullin
  Yes. We stand ready to provide support to the parliamentary elections in Somaliland. We hope these will take place soon and make this point regularly to the Somaliland authorities.

  Tenzin Deleg Rinpoche
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the(a) Chinese Foreign Minister and (b) Chinese ambassador to the Court of St. James's in connection with the imprisonment of Tenzin Deleg Rinpoche. [153294]

  Mr. Rammell
  I raised the case with Assistant Foreign Minister Zhang Yesui in Beijing on 17 December 2003. He replied that Tenzin Deleg Rinpoche had had a fair and public trial and been sentenced in accordance with Chinese law.

  The latest EU demarche took place in Beijing on 4 February. In response, Mr. Wang Min, Deputy Director General of the Department of International Organisations and Conferences at the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that Tenzin Deleg Rinpoche was in good health and being held in Tuandong prison, Sichuan province.

  We have raised Tenzin Deleg Rinpoche's case with the Chinese authorities on a number of occasions, including in our bilateral human rights dialogue and through the EU. We have raised concerns about both his welfare and his medical treatment on other occasions.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Acquired Brain Injury
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans the Government have to provide central funding for community-based training and rehabilitation for people with acquired brain injury in Northern Ireland after the Department of Employment and Learning ceases to provide further funding for the ReConnect training facility; and what alternative plans he has for funding this service. [152417]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Department for Employment and Learning and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety are currently considering the implications of the failure of ReConnect to win ESF funding for its work. As part of this process of consideration they will explore how best the training and rehabilitation needs of this client group can be met, in the longer term.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which Government Department is responsible for the provision of community-based training and rehabilitation of those with acquired brain injury in Northern Ireland. [152419]
  1160W
  Jane Kennedy
  The Department for Employment and Learning is responsible for the provision of support for individuals with acquired brain injury to help them reenter the labour market. This includes the provision of appropriate vocational training.

  The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is responsible for the provision of rehabilitation for people with a brain injury where this is required to meet assessed clinical or social need. This includes intensive in-patient rehabilitation and community-based social rehabilitation covering such areas as social and daily living skills.

  Draft European Constitution
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with the Minister for Europe on the Draft Constitution for the European Union and its impact on Northern Ireland. [152582]

  Mr. Pearson
  I am a member of the Joint Ministerial Committee on the European Union, which is chaired by the Foreign Secretary and of which the Minister for Europe is also a member. The Draft Constitutional Treaty on the European Union has been discussed at previous meetings of the Committee.

  Northern Ireland's position on European issues will continue to be represented through the appropriate channels at both official and ministerial levels.

  Flood Defences
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what projects(a) have been completed, (b) are under way and (c) are planned to deal with flooding in North Belfast; and what the costs are of each project. [152584]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have asked the Chief Executive of Water Service to write to the hon. Gentleman in response to this question. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.

  Kinnego Park
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will place in the Library a map of the land in the vicinity of Kinnego Park in Derry that is in the possession of the Road Service. [151587]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have arranged for the relevant map to be placed in the Library.

  Learning Difficulties
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what input the working group chaired by the Department of Education to consider future provision for young people with moderate learning difficulties has made to(a) the Review of Mental Health and Learning Disability Services commissioned and led by the Department of Health and Social Services and Public Safety, (b) the Children's Strategy Review led by the Office of the First and Deputy First Ministers and (c) the consultation exercise on Youth Services led by the Department of Education. [152143]
  1161W
  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.

  (a) The Chair of the IDG is a member of the Promoting Social Inclusion sub-group of the Review of Mental Health and Learning Disability Steering Group. The Education and Training Inspectorate is represented on both the Review of Mental Health and Learning Disability Steering Group and the Children and Young People Task Group, as well as the IDG.

  (b) The IDG has made no direct input to the development of the Strategy for Children and Young People. However, the Department is represented on the interdepartmental group which is overseeing the development of the strategy and through this forum will ensure that the strategy takes account of the various initiatives in which the Department is involved.

  (c) It is not clear to which consultation exercise the question refers. Issues which have indications for the Youth Service will be drawn to the attention of the relevant authorities.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the cost to his Department of using management consultants has been in each of the last five years. [148029]

  Number (wte) employed in North/South Implementation Bodies at 5 November 2003

  Body

  Permanent

  Secondees

  Temporary

  Placements

  Total

  The Foyle Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission

  35

  1

  2

  2

  40

  Waterways Ireland

  314.12

  1

  11

  —

  326.12

  The Trade and Business Development Body

  38.6

  1

  —

  2

  41.6

  The Special EU Programmes Body

  36

  2

  6

  —

  44

  The North/South Language Body

  40.1

  3

  1.4

  1

  45.5

  The Food Safety Promotion Board

  19

  —

  9

  1

  29

  Grand total

  482.82

  8

  29.4

  6

  526.22

  Paramilitary Activities
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many paramilitary shootings there were in 2003, broken down by paramilitary group. [152354]

  Jane Kennedy
  It is not possible to provide the information in the level of detail requested. However, I can advise that during 2003 there were 154 paramilitary style shootings: 99 attributed to loyalists and 55 to republicans.

  Note:

  2003 statistics are provisional and may be subject to minor amendment.

  Police Service of Northern Ireland
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) police officers and (b) full-time reservists are attached to each district command unit; and if he will make a statement. [152526]
  1162W
  Mr. Pearson
  The total expenditure on use of management consultants1 for my Department (including the Northern Ireland Office, but excluding agencies and non-departmental public bodies) in each of the last five years was as follows:
  1Defined as consultancy work relating to policy appraisal and review, strategic management, organisational development and performance management.

  (£)

  1999–00

  11,193,814

  2000–01

  2,541,618

  2001–02

  3,104,216

  2002–03

  2,642,657

  2003–04

  1,639,617

  1 Following devolution five new NI Departments came into existence in December 1999 (the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, Department of Employment and Learning, Department for Regional Development, Department for Social Development and the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister). The first four months were largely taken up with the development of structures and strategies. Expenditure on consultancy was, therefore, relatively small.

  North-South Implementation Bodies
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the current staffing figures for each of the North-South implementation bodies. [152591]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Details of the staff employed in the North/South Implementation Bodies as at 5 November 2003 are provided in the table below:

  Jane Kennedy
  The figures requested as at 30 January 2004 are shown in the table.

  (FTE)

  DCU

  Regular

  Reserve CON

  Antrim DCU

  138.75

  46

  Ards DCU

  150.75

  48

  Armagh DCU

  129.5

  52

  Banbridge DCU

  91.5

  24.75

  Belfast East DCU

  216

  114

  Belfast North DCU

  356.5

  73

  Belfast South DCU

  350.75

  105

  Belfast West DCU

  247

  144

  Ballymena DCU

  138

  19

  Ballymoney DCU

  65

  12

  Carrickfergus DCU

  79

  41

  Coleraine

  134

  32

  Cookstown

  91

  24

  Craigavon DCU

  193.75

  43

  Castlereagh DCU

  126.5

  56

  Dungannon and South Tyrone

  142.75

  45

  Down DCU

  157.5

  54

  Fermanagh DCU

  183

  55

  1163W

  (FTE)

  DCU

  Regular

  Reserve CON

  Foyle DCU

  248

  63

  Larne DCU

  82

  16

  Limavady DCU

  83

  22

  Lisburn DCU

  233.25

  79

  Magherafelt DCU

  94

  45

  Moyle DCU

  27

  10

  Newtownabbey DCU

  156

  24

  North Down DCU

  156.75

  65

  Newry and Mourne DCU

  196.75

  59

  Omagh DCU

  125

  32

  Strabane DCU

  111

  44

  Totals

  4,504

  1,446.75

  The table represents those officers specifically attached to District Command Units. A further 2,654 regular and 173 full-time reserve officers are attached to headquarters and regions, many of whom (such as those within Tactical Support Groups, Regional Crime Squads and Road Traffic Policing) are also deployed to assist officers in individual District Command Units as necessary.

  Note:

  It should be noted that where officers are listed as, for example,. 75 or. 25 this equates to hours worked of full-time staff who have elected to work part-time.

  Public Order
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have been charged with an offence arising out of disturbances in North Belfast on 12 July 2003. [152395]

  Jane Kennedy
  No persons have been charged with public order offences in North Belfast on 12 July 2003.

  Racism
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will attend the Anti-Racist Network rally in Belfast City Hall on 27 January; and whether his Department is providing financial assistance for the rally. [151137]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I was unable to attend the rally in Belfast due to commitments in Westminster. I understand that an official from the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister's Race Equality Unit attended.

  Sinn Fein
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the recent comments by the Justice Minister of the Republic of Ireland that Sinn Fein benefits from criminal activity. [152359]

  Jane Kennedy
  I am aware of the recent comments by the Irish Government, and we maintain close contact with them. Investigation of specific allegations of criminal activity is a matter for the Chief Constable. More generally, PIRA and other paramilitary involvement in criminal activity is well documented, as is the range of action being taken against it.
  1164W

  Speed Limits
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the tolerance levels permitted by the Police Service of Northern Ireland are for motorists exceeding the speed limit and who have been detected using(a) fixed cameras, (b) mobile cameras and (c) other detection devices; and how long these tolerance levels have been in force. [152847]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Northern Ireland Safety Camera Scheme was launched on 1 July 2003, comprising four fixed sites and over 70 mobile enforcement sites. To date a total of 10,321 motorists have been detected through the scheme.

  The PSNI do not think that it would be appropriate to disclose the threshold they operate to in respect of speeding offences as this may lead motorists to make an assumption that it is safe to travel at this speed without fear of detection, thus contributing to an increase in the overall average speed of vehicles on our roads.

  The purpose of a threshold is to allow for inaccuracies in the target vehicle's speedometer and to provide a consistency in police enforcement. The threshold does not vary according to the type of enforcement being conducted, however should there be extenuating circumstances, for example, children entering and leaving school, the threshold may be lowered in order to deal with offending motorists.

  The thresholds have been in place since October 2001.

  St. Cecilia's College
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what assessment has been made of the(a) size and (b) physical condition of the buildings at St. Cecilia's College, Derry, for the purposes of delivering the Northern Ireland curriculum; and what the time scale is for replacement of the school buildings; [151573]

  (2) what assessment he has made of whether the (a) size and (b) physical condition of the buildings of St. Cecilia's College, Derry, are sufficient for the purposes of delivering the Northern Ireland Curriculum; and what his Department's plans are for the timing of replacement school buildings. [149654]

  Jane Kennedy
  St. Cecilia's College suffers from a number of serious deficiencies in the level of permanent accommodation. A major capital works scheme to address these deficiencies was announced in March 2001 and a project board has been established to take forward the scheme through a public private partnership arrangement. It is anticipated that, subject to securing a successful outcome from current discussions on the site issues affecting the school, it should be possible for the scheme for a new school to progress shortly to public advertisement. I would hope that the scheme could be completed within about 2½ years following the advertisement.

  Surgery (Gall Stones and Kidney Stones)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in Northern Ireland
  1165W
  have required surgery for the treatment of (a) gall stones and (b) kidney stones, in each of the past five years. [152922]

  Angela Smith
  The information is as follows:

  (a)The following table shows the total number of patients in Northern Ireland who had surgery for gall stones in each of the last five financial years.

  NI total

  1998–99

  1,781

  1999–2000

  1,798

  2000–01

  1,829

  2001–02

  1,834

  2002–03

  2,119

  (b) The following table shows the total number of patients in Northern Ireland who had surgery for kidney stones in each of the last five financial years.

  NI total

  1998–99

  191

  1999–2000

  216

  2000–01

  213

  2001–02

  199

  2002–03

  360

  Source:

  Hospital Inpatients System.

  Teacher Vacancies
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many teacher vacancies there were in Northern Ireland in each year since 1997; and what steps he is taking to reduce such figures. [151321]

  Jane Kennedy
  Information on teaching vacancies is not held by the Department of Education nor collated by the relevant employing authorities as figures change very frequently due to workforce mobility. However, a survey into possible teacher shortages in the post-primary sector, carried out by researchers from Stranmillis University College in June 2003, indicated 86 vacancies out of a total teaching force of over 10,000 in that sector.

TREASURY

  Immigration
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he plans to change his estimate of immigration in the(a) short, (b) medium and (c) long terms to take account of likely numbers of immigrants from Eastern European countries which will accede to the EU this year. [153094]

  Ruth Kelly
  The latest (2002-based) official population projections for the United Kingdom were published by the Government Actuary's Department in December 2003. At present, the precise impact of enlargement of the European Union cannot be predicted. However, recent Home Office research has concluded that the effect on the UK is likely to be fairly small.
  1166W
  National population projections are normally carried out biennially and the next set is scheduled for publication in 2005. As usual, there will be a full review of migration assumptions for these projections. The need for an additional allowance for the effects of EU enlargement will be reviewed at the time.

  Community Amateur Sports Clubs
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many community amateur sports clubs he estimates will benefit from 80 per cent. mandatory rate relief in(a) Lancashire and (b) Chorley. [153123]

  John Healey
  It is estimated that between 30,000 and 40,000 clubs in the UK might be eligible to apply for registration as a community amateur sports club (CASC). Details of clubs by town or county are not held centrally.

  All eligible clubs in England and Wales will be able to receive mandatory rates relief of 80 per cent. from April 2004. Local authorities can increase this relief to 100 per cent. at their own discretion.

  Economic Inactivity
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were economically inactive and what the economic inactivity rate was for each quarter since Quarter 1 1997. broken down by(a) qualification level, (b) income bracket, (c) former profession where applicable, (d) age group and (e) sex, in each (i) constituency and (ii) region. [152932]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. George Osborne, dated 9 February 2004:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about economic inactivity. (152932)
  I regret that this information could only be provided in full at disproportionate cost. However, some of the higher-level information requested is published on the ONS website, or on the Nomis(database, both of which are available via the House of Commons Library.
  Information about economic inactivity levels by age and sex in each region is published in Table 10 of the Labour Market Statistics Regional First Releases, which can be accessed from the following page on the ONS website: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/ press-release/Archive.asp. These estimates, from the Labour Force Survey (LFS), are subject to revisions. LFS estimates published in the Regional First Releases prior to 13 November 2003 are not directly comparable with current data. As with any sample survey, estimates from the LFS are subject to sampling variability.
  ONS does not publish estimates of economic inactivity rates by age and sex for each region. However, these can be calculated by subtracting the economic activity rate (published in Table 9 of the Regional First Releases) from 100 per cent.
  For Parliamentary Constituency areas, ONS produces information about economic inactivity rates, but not levels, by age and sex. This information is available on a yearly basis and can be obtained from the Nomis(database.

  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what(a) benefits and (b) tax credits are available to people who are economically inactive. [152933]
  1167W
  Dawn Primarolo
  Incapacity Benefit, Carer's Allowance, Severe Disablement Allowance, Income Support and Housing and Council Tax Benefit are the principal benefits available to working age people who are economically inactive. From this year all families with children and with annual pre-tax incomes of £58,000 or less are eligible for the Child Tax Credit.

  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost was of(a) benefits and (b) tax credits paid to people who were economically inactive in each year since 1997. [152934]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Information on expenditure on benefits which are primarily paid to economically inactive people of working age is published in the Benefit Expenditure Tables on the Department of Work and Pensions' Website at www.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd4/ expenditure.asp. The Working Families' and Disabled Person's Tax Credits were only paid to households with one or more working adults. From this year all families with children and with annual pre-tax incomes of £58,000 or less are eligible for the Child Tax Credit.

  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of(a) educational attainment, (b) skills gaps and (c) language barriers as causes of economic inactivity. [152937]

  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 for Work and Pensions, December 2003), a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  The Government's strategy to raise skill levels in the UK is set out in the White Paper "21st Century Skills—Realising our Potential" in July 2003 (Cm 5810).

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a summary of responses received to the consultation paper Economic instruments to improve household energy efficiency: consultation document on specific measures. [153763]

  John Healey
  The consultation was launched on 1 August 2003, and closed on 24 October. The Government received 126 responses, a summary of which was published on the Treasury's website on 11 December 2003, and a copy is available in the Library of the House.

  Euro
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect upon forecast euro area gross domestic product growth of the strength of the euro on the euro area trade route; and what assessment he has made of the implications of this effect for the UK economy. [153587]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government will update their forecasts for the UK economy and the euro area in the Budget on 17 March, taking into account all relevant factors.
  1168W

  Family Expenditure Survey
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the definition of income in the family expenditure survey includes capital gains. [153616]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Dr. Vincent Cable, dated 9 February 2004:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking whether the definition of income in the Family Expenditure Survey includes capital gains. (153616)
  The definition of income used in the Family Expenditure Survey, and its successor from 2001–02, the Expenditure and Food Survey, does not include capital gains. This is in accordance with international guidelines. Further detail is available on the National Statistics website at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/ downloads/theme_social/Family_Spending_2001_02_revised/ Family_Spending_revised.pdf

  International Finance Facility
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what contribution the UK will make to the International Finance Facility to 2015; and what proportion of projected GDP this represents. [152921]

  John Healey
  Final decisions on contributions to the proposed International Finance Facility can only be taken in conjunction with donor partners.

  For our part, the UK Government stands ready to commit the additional resources pledged at the 2002 Monterrey Conference, where all EU states agreed to reach 0.39 per cent. ODA/GNI from 2006. The most recent Spending Review announced that UK ODA would reach £4.9 billion from 2005–06, or 0.4 per cent. ODA/GNI, thereby exceeding our Monterrey commitment. This represents a 93 per cent. increase in UK official development assistance since 1997.

  MOD Expenditure
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those categories of expenditure within which the Ministry of Defence may normally incur commitments within existing budgetary limits without the need to refer to his Department. [153516]

  Mr. Boateng
  A list of categories within HM Treasury's financial delegation to MOD has been placed in the Library of the House.

  National Savings Bank Accounts
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions took place between the Treasury, the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters and non-governmental organisations representing the elderly prior to the decision to withdraw the National Savings Bank Blue Ordinary Account; and if he will make a statement. [153474]

  Ruth Kelly
  National Savings and Investments' primary role is to raise cost-effective financing for the Government and it can only achieve this by offering savings and investment products which are attractive to customers and which they want to buy.
  1169W
  The Ordinary Account, set up in 1861, has changed little since it was introduced. Due to extensive changes in the savings market, the Ordinary Account no longer reflects customers' savings needs. In light of this, and following research with a wide range of customers, National Savings and Investments decided, with the Treasury's approval, to close the Ordinary Account and open a new and more appealing product—the Easy Access Savings Account. The features of this new product are aimed at offering customers greater flexibility in managing their savings.

  The Post Office remains a key channel for National Savings and Investments and the new Easy Access Savings Account has been specifically developed with them to take advantage of their new network banking capability.

  Although neither the Treasury nor National Savings and Investments had direct discussions with the National Federation of Sub Postmasters, the Post Office engaged in direct discussions with the Federation on how to introduce the new account and close the Ordinary Account.

  In December, as the first public announcement of the planned changes was made, special interest groups, including those with a special interest in the elderly, were informed by the Post Office and National Savings and Investments. National Savings and Investments also offered to discuss their plans directly with these groups as well as with the Federation.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what provision will be made to enable National Savings Bank Blue Ordinary Account holders without bank accounts to transfer funds to a National Savings Bank Easy Access Account; [153475]

  (2) whether post office card accounts are acceptable in lieu of bank accounts for the purpose of transferring from National Savings Bank Blue Ordinary accounts to National Savings Bank Easy Access accounts. [153476]

  Ruth Kelly
  In common with many other providers, National Savings and Investments' new Easy Access Savings Account requires a customer to have a bank or building society account to receive repayments. The Easy Access Savings Account will therefore not be suitable for those without such an account. However, National Savings and Investments offer other products, including the Investment Account, which can be operated without the need for a bank account. The Post Office card account is limited to receiving pension or benefit payments only and no other credits so would not be suitable as an alternative to use with an Easy Access Savings Account.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what facilities will be made available to give persons holding National Savings Bank blue ordinary accounts who do not have a bank account access to their funds after 31 July. [153451]

  Ruth Kelly
  After 31 July 2004, if a customer wishes to make a withdrawal from their Ordinary Account— which must be to close the account—the arrangements will remain as they currently stand. A customer who 1170W
  does not have a bank account can request an uncrossed warrant that can be encashed at a chosen Post Office branch.

  Penrose Report
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the reasons are for the delay in the publication of the Penrose Report on Equitable Life. [153796]

  Ruth Kelly
  As set out in my written statement of 5 January 2004, the Treasury intends to publish the report in full as soon as possible. There will be an announcement about publication in due course.

  Provision for Defence Capability
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the net cash requirement for Request for Resources 1: Provision for Defence Capability is for financial years 2001–02 to 2002–03; and what the planned net cash requirement is for financial years 2003–04 to 2005–06. [153023]

  Mr. Boateng
  For 2001–02 and 2002–03, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Ministry of Defence's Report and Accounts 2002–03 (published in October 2003) and for the current year to the Winter Supplementary Estimate for 2003–04 (published in November 2003). Net Cash Requirement figures for 2004–05 and 2005–06 are not held.

  R and D Tax Credit
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of the small businesses that have applied for the research and development tax credit have had their applications accepted in each year since 2000. [152527]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The number of claims from small companies received in each year since 2000 is given in my answer to a question from the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) of 19 January 2004,Official Report, column 1045W. The figures provided represent the number of Corporation Tax Self Assessment returns where companies have claimed research and development tax credits.

  Spirit Duty (Evasion)
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful prosecutions there were for evading duty on spirits in 2001–02. [152946]

  John Healey
  In 2001–02 there were nine prosecutions for evading duty on spirits, of these seven were successful and two were unsuccessful.

  Additionally 99 prosecutions were brought for cases involving the evasion of duty on mixed excise goods, some of which may have included spirits.

  Figures for the current and future years will be reported by HM Customs and Excise in their Annual Report.
  1171W

  Theatre Tax Receipts
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate total tax receipts accruing to the Exchequer from the theatre sector through(a)the taxation of theatre companies' profits and (b)VAT on the sale of theatre tickets. [153231]

  John Healey
  Corporation Tax data do not identify receipts from the theatre sector separately from other Recreational Services.

  The VAT due on the sale of theatre tickets is estimated at around £45 million. This estimate does not take account of any input VAT reclaimed by businesses on the purchase of theatre tickets.

  Tripartite Committee on Financial Stability
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to whom the minutes of the Tripartite Committee on Financial Stability are distributed; and when and under what circumstances they can be made available to hon. Members. [153726]

  Ruth Kelly
  The minutes of the Tripartite Committee are distributed to the Chancellor, the Financial Secretary and other officials at the Treasury, Bank of England and the Financial Services Authority. The minutes must remain confidential because of constraints under EC and UK law, because publication could discourage private sector practitioners and foreign financial authorities from supplying information on an informal basis and because the material is often market sensitive.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the agenda items covered by the monthly meetings of the Tripartite Committee on Financial Stability in the last six months. [153727]

  Ruth Kelly
  The agendas of Tripartite Standing Committee meetings must remain confidential because even the disclosure that a certain issue has been discussed could be market sensitive, or in some circumstances, exacerbate problems which the Committee is seeking to address.

  The range of subjects that the Committee has discussed was described in a note by HM Treasury to the Treasury Committee in January 2003.

CONSTITIONAL AFFAIRS

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs when he will reply to the letter to him dated 15 December 2003 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. W. Stewart. [151235]

  Mr. Lammy
  I apologise to my right hon. Friend for the delay in replying to his letter of 15 December last. The position in relation to Mr. Stewart's dealing with the Legal Services Commission is that the Commission wrote to his solicitors on 22 January, requesting that they submit their bill of costs within 28 days. I hope to be in a position to report to him further during the week 23 February.
  1172W

DEFENCE

  Afghanistan
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what type of secure communications systems are available to British troops in Afghanistan; [153054]

  (2) what (a) type and (b) quantity of secure communications British (i) foot and (ii) mobile patrols have in Afghanistan. [153050]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 5 February 2004]The United Kingdom's forces deployed in Afghanistan are equipped with a range of static and mobile secure communications systems. Static systems operating through satellite ground stations link both the United Kingdom's contingent serving in the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), and the provincial reconstruction team (PRT), into the Ministry of Defence's wider secure communications network. The ISAF contingent also uses an encrypted very high frequency radio system for both vehicle and foot patrols while the PRT relies on tactical satellite communications systems. I am withholding further details of these systems and the numbers in accordance with exemption 1 of the code of practice on access to Government information.

  Aircraft Carrier
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on current projections of cost and capability for the new aircraft carrier programme. [149775]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Future Aircraft Carrier (CVF) programme is currently in its Assessment Phase. Decisions on the programme beyond that stage, including the capability which CVF will deliver, will be taken at the Main Gate investment point.

  Our current estimate for the cost of the Demonstration and Manufacture contract is around £3 billion. These cost estimates will be further refined during the remainder of the Assessment Phase.

  Ammunition
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many contracts for the production of ammunition have been awarded to foreign companies in circumstances where a British company has bid for the contract in the last five years; and who the(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful companies were in each case. [152007]

  Mr. Ingram
  Over the past five years some 44 contracts for ammunition have been placed with foreign companies. However, we are unable to verify whether British companies bid for these contracts as the information on unsuccessful bidders is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  1173W
  The successful contractors by country were as follows:
  Belgium
  FN Herstal
  Germany

  Dynamit Nobel GmbH

  Silberhutte

  Raug Munitions

  Nico Pyro

  MEN

  Shamban Aerospace Sealing

  Israel
  Israel Military Industries
  Italy
  Simmel
  Netherlands
  Erometaal
  Norway
  Nammo Raufoss
  South Africa
  Swartklip
  Milkor (PT Y) Ltd.
  Sweden
  Nammo Vanasverken
  Bofors
  USA
  General Dynamics

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which foreign contractors after winning an ammunition contract have refused to supply the goods in the last five years; and what the reasons given for doing so were in each case. [152008]

  Mr. Ingram
  There have been no known cases in the last five years of foreign contractors refusing to supply ammunition which they were contracted to do so.

  Armed Forces Accommodation (Wales)
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the standard of armed forces accommodation in Wales. [151740]

  Mr. Caplin
  Separate figures for Wales are not readily identifiable and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. However, within the Western Region, of which Wales is a part, there are 3,683 core family properties of which 2,446 are in the top category for quality. Single Living Accommodation, which provides some 3,800 bed-spaces in Wales and 1,462 are in the top two quality categories.

  Arms Purchases
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Government have used a contractor to purchase weapons from abroad for supply to another foreign user; and if he will make a statement. [146688]

  Mr. Ingram
  No form of arrangements have been made with a contractor to purchase weapons from abroad for supply to a foreign user outside of the governing UK export control system.
  1174W

  Artillery Weapons
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress on deciding which weapons would best meet the Army's future Lightweight Mobile Artillery Weapons System Gun requirement. [152006]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Lightweight Mobile Artillery Weapons System Gun programme is currently in its Assessment Phase. A decision on the best solution for this requirement is not expected before 2006.

  Cluster Munitions
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date his Department was informed of the purchase in early 2003 by BAE Systems UK from Israel Military Industries of 26,000 155 mm L20 cluster artillery shells; whether the order was made at the behest of his Department; what his Department's response was in respect of this proposed purchase; on what date a Minister was first notified of this proposed purchase and what his response was; on what date his Department purchased these cluster shells from BAE Systems and at what cost; for what reason his Department purchased these cluster shells from BAE Systems rather than from Israeli Military Systems directly; and if he will make a statement. [146471]

  Mr. Ingram
  A contract was let with BAE Systems on 7 November 2002 by the Defence General Munitions Integrated Project Team (DGM IPT). Deliveries from that contract were made in March, May, June and July 2003. I am withholding details of the cost of these munitions in accordance with Exemption 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information as it is classified Commercial in Confidence. It is normal practice under the Framework Partnering Agreement with the Royal Ordnance Defence division of BAE Systems for the DGM IPT to use the company as a Prime Contractor whenever it is cost effective and adds value to do so. In this case, these requirements were met since BAE Systems were able to negotiate favourable rates for the shell.

  Colchester Garrison
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many companies are in negotiations with the Ministry of Defence over the Colchester Garrison Private Finance Initiative agreement; [153518]

  (2) how long negotiations for the Colchester Garrison Private Finance Initiative agreement have been taking place. [153517]

  Mr. Caplin
  As I announced on 3 February 2004,Official Report, column 30WS, the Ministry of Defence has reached agreement with RMPA Services plc to redevelop and operate Colchester Garrison under a Private Finance Initiative. RMPA Services plc are a consortium, comprising Sir Robert McAlpine, W. S. Atkins plc, Sodexho and HSBC Infrastructure. Negotiations with the consortium commenced in October 1999 when they were appointed preferred bidder.
  1175W

  Departmental Land
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total expenditure on the maintenance of land owned by his Department within the UK was in 2002–03. [142286]

  Mr. Caplin
  The total expenditure on the Defence Estate in financial year 2002–03 for works services, accommodation stores, redevelopment, building maintenance, major housing works and some project expenditure on both land and buildings was £1.5 billion.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his Answer of 8 December 2003,Official Report, column 274W, on departmental land, what the cost of maintaining land owned by his Department was in each of the last five years; and what the value is of the land. [148965]

  Mr. Caplin
  The following figures include costs for each of the last four full financial years for works services, accommodation stores, redevelopment, building maintenance, major housing works and some project expenditure on both land and buildings. There is no published information for 1998–99.

  Financial year

  £billion

  1999–2000

  1.1

  2000–01

  1.2

  2001–02

  1.2

  2002–03

  1.5

  The value of land owned by the Ministry of Defence is available on the Fixed Assets Register which can be accessed at http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/mediastore/ otherfiles/217. pdf

  DSA Marketing and Sales Agreements

  SRL No.

  Contractor

  Commodity

  Current Contractor

  1

  Azcom

  Office and Domestic Furniture

  2

  Babcock

  Commercial Vessels

  3

  Babcock

  Misc Items (RMA)

  4

  BAE Systems

  Stingray MODO and Tigerfish

  5

  Cronifer

  Sale of Stock and Reusable Metals

  6

  Donelan

  Office and Domestic Furniture

  7

  Ecosse Hospital Products Ltd.

  Hospital Products

  8

  Field Textiles

  Clothing and Textiles

  9

  JCM

  Sale of surpluses from private sector and Gazelle Helicopters

  10

  Leyland Trucks Ltd.

  Sale of Leyland 4 tonne trucks to Kenya

  11

  Liquidity Services Intl

  Surplus Ship, Aircraft and A Veh. Spares

  12

  MBDA UK Ltd.

  Rapier Eqpt and Spares

  13

  Office Green

  Toner and Ink Jet Cartridges and Mobile Phones

  14

  PAL Carriers Ltd.

  Office and Domestic Furniture

  15

  Penman Eng Ltd.

  APV 1.5 Vehicles

  16

  Ramco

  Misc. Items and Catering Eqpt. (RMA)

  17

  Recommit

  Computers Associated Eqpt.

  18

  RO PLC/BAE

  Army Ammunition

  19

  Sigma Aerospace

  ALISON T-56 AERO ENGINES

  20

  Silver Lining

  Surplus Computers Associated Eqpt.

  1176W

  Disposal Contractors
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what provision the Department has made for exceptional legal costs associated with litigation with disposal contractors; [151582]

  (2) how many sets of barristers' chambers have been employed by the Disposal Services Agency for litigation against disposal contractors since 1997, broken down by litigation action; [151589]

  (3) what the (a) external legal and (b) total costs were of settling each claim by the Disposal Services Agency against disposal contractors in each year since 1997, broken down by contractor; [151590]

  (4) how the accounts of the Disposal Services Agency indicated costs incurred for legal action involving disposal contractors in each year since 1997; [151591]

  (5) which disposal contractors are in litigation with the Disposal Services Agency; and how many other disputes may result in litigation, broken down by contractor; [151592]

  (6) how many disposal contractors the Disposal Services Agency has been in litigation with on contractual matters in each quarter since 1997, broken down by contractor; and how many have been settled by each year end; [151593]

  (7) which disposal contractors have dealt with the Disposal Services Agency since 1997; [151594]

  (8) what the legal costs of defending each action by disposal contractors against the Disposal Services Agency were in each of the last five years; [152145]

  (9) if he will list the cases against the Disposal Services Agency which were settled (a) in court and (b) by arbitration in each of the last five years. [152146]

  Mr. Ingram
  A list of all the companies that have held disposal contracts with the Disposal Services Agency (DSA) for the collection, storage and marketing of surplus MOD stock since 1997 is set out as follows:
  1177W

  DSA Marketing and Sales Agreements

  SRL No.

  Contractor

  Commodity

  21

  Thales Air Defence

  Javelin "Starburst" S1 5

  22

  Thorn Microwave Devices

  RADAR (ESFKS)

  23

  Trackteck Industries

  Cymbeline (mortar location radar)

  24

  Victory Ltd.

  Wood and Copper HMS Victory

  25

  Withams

  Motor Vehicles (Non Armoured)

  Former Contractors

  26

  AMAC (UK) Ltd.

  Clothing and Textiles

  27

  Blue Chip International Disposals

  Misc. Items (RMA)

  28

  British Car Auctions

  Motor Vehicles

  29

  Compaq Ltd.

  Computers Associated Eqpt

  30

  EKO-TEK Power Ltd.

  Misc Items (RMA)

  31

  Digital Ltd.

  Computers Associated Eqpt.

  32

  Fourth Party Services Ltd.

  Computers Associated Eqpt.

  33

  Sartek (UK) Ltd.

  Computers Associated Eqpt.

  34

  Hall and Watts

  105mm Pack Howitzer

  35

  LC Trading

  Office and Domestic Furniture

  36

  Leafields Logistics and Tech. Services Ltd.

  Ship Spares

  37

  Leafields Logistics and Tech. Services Ltd.

  Misc. Items (RMA)

  38

  MASL

  Aircraft Spares

  39

  MGS (UK) Ltd.

  Misc Items (RMA)—Region 5 and 7

  40

  Military Vehicle Spares Ltd.

  Motor Vehicle Spares

  41

  RO Defence PLC

  Light Guns

  All of the DSA's contracts with these marketing contractors contain clauses within them that allow for the resolution of disputes. If, through normal dialogue between the parties, a dispute cannot be resolved, either party has the right to seek resolution of the dispute through litigation or arbitration. The arbitration process is in confidence.

  Since 1997, there has only been one case of arbitration and this is still ongoing. However, because the information refers to legal proceedings, I am withholding the details in accordance with Exemption 4c of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. There have been no court proceedings.

  If a dispute escalates into formal arbitration, legal costs may be incurred by the Department (depending upon the nature of the claim). These costs, however, may be recoverable depending on the outcome of the arbitration process.

  Fighter Jets
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether Harrier GR7/9 aircraft will be able to operate from CVF prior to the entry into the service of the joint strike fighter; [152242]

  (2) when he expects the joint strike fighter to enter into service. [152243]

  Mr. Ingram
  It would in theory be possible to operate Harrier GR9 from CVF but we have no requirement to do so. Current planning assumptions are that the primary aircraft operating from CVF will be the short take off vertical landing (STOVL) variant of the joint strike fighter which has been selected as the future joint combat aircraft (FJCA). Both CVF and FJCA are currently planned to come into service in 2012.

  Foreign Ships
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 2 February 2004,Official Report, column 746W, on foreign ships, what
  1178W
  plans he has to change the process by which his Department charters foreign ships; how many foreign vessels were rejected for charter last year because they failed to meet the standards set by his Department; and what plans he has to increase the proportion of British ships flying the Red Ensign used by his Department. [153932]

  Mr. Ingram
  The process for chartering freight-carrying commercial ships is reviewed on a regular basis and was last reviewed during 2003, following the Iraq campaign, when a more robust risk-based assessment was incorporated. Specialist ships are chartered to deliver specific technical capability, primarily outside the United Kingdom and often with limited global availability.

  As I said in my previous reply, information on why ships fail consideration of charter is not held centrally. This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The selection of ships for charter is dependent on a whole range of factors, of which flagging is but one. The Ministry of Defence charters ships in accordance with the European Union guidelines and to give bias to ships flying the Red Ensign would, therefore, run counter to such arrangements.

  Future Aircraft Carriers
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his latest estimate is of the maximum number of aircraft which will be capable of deployment on each future aircraft carrier. [146511]

  Mr. Ingram
  The CVF programme is currently in its Assessment Phase. This stage of work is intended to balance the key parameters of performance, time and cost in order to best meet our developing capability requirements, both in terms of the ships themselves and in the aircraft they will operate. The precise number of aircraft capable of being deployed on each CVF is still being finalised and will continue to evolve as the programme progresses.
  1179W

  HMS Bridport
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what repair work needed to be done to HMS Bridport in the 12 months before she was withdrawn from service; [150866]

  (2) what his assessment is of the cost of bringing HMS Bridport into operational service. [150867]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on 20 January 2003,Official Report, column 72W. During the 12 months before HMS Bridport was placed in extended readiness, no specific repair work needed to be done other than the routine maintenance and periodic safety related tasks which are necessary to enable RN ships to fulfil Fleet tasking. Should the decision be taken to return HMS Bridport to operational service, the cost of regeneration would depend on her material state and the plans for her future tasking at that time. Bridport was to have undergone a refit in 2002. However, in view of the decision to hold her in extended readiness, this work was not undertaken. Therefore, to regenerate her would require, as a minimum, an extended refit.

  Hutton Report
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who in his Department saw the embargoed version of Lord Hutton's report. [152677]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave on 3 February 2004,Official Report, column 758W.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what cost savings have been made in his Department since the introduction of the Information Technology Procurement Centre of Excellence; and how these were calculated. [151039]

  Mr. Caplin
  In June 2003 the Ministry of Defence set up a centre of excellence covering all procurement issues. MOD has not attributed cost savings to the Centre of Excellence.

  Iodine Tablets (Nuclear Submarine Berths)
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the reason was for the issuing of stable iodine tablets to members of the public living near the nuclear submarine berths at Loch Ewe and in Broadford Bay; and if he will make a statement. [147133]

  Mr. Ingram
  There is a berth at Aultbea (Loch Ewe) and a second at Broadford Bay that are designated as suitable for visits by operational nuclear-powered warships. Under the Radiation Emergency Preparedness and Public Information Regulations 2001 (REPPIR 2001), local authorities have responsibility for preparing an off-site emergency plan in the vicinity of such berths. Decisions on the distribution of Potassium Iodate Tablets form part of this planning activity.

  The purpose of emergency planning is to ensure that procedures are in place to maximise public safety. Following a review, Wester Loch Ewe Community
  1180W
  Council in consultation with NHS Highlands and Islands and the Northern Constabulary, and with advice from the Ministry of Defence, decided that the most practical and efficient means of ensuring that Potassium Iodate Tablets are readily available, in the very unlikely event of a nuclear incident at the Aultbea and Broadford Bay berths, would be to pre-distribute the tablets to the local population. The tablets have been distributed by the MOD, on behalf of the local authorities, to all properties, private and commercial, within a two kilometre radius of Aultbea and Broadford Bay within the last two weeks.

  Iraq
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Arabic speakers are employed by British forces in Iraq; in what situations they are employed; and from where they have been recruited. [145493]

  Mr. Ingram
  Arabic-speaking personnel working in Iraq include qualified interpreters who assist senior military and civilian officials, UK military specialists who mostly-deal with translation of classified information, interpreters employed in theatre (mainly Iraqis but also some Kuwaitis), civilians taken on locally to assist with general low-level communication with the Iraqi population and civilians locally recruited for some support and administrative tasks. The total number of Arabic speakers in Iraq is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Iraqi arms dumps have been discovered in Iraq since 1 May 2003; and if he will make a statement. [147172]

  Mr. Ingram
  As at 2 February 48 major Iraqi arms dumps had been identified in the Multinational Division (South East) area of responsibility. We are not in a position to comment on other areas of Iraq.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from members of the Iraqi Governing Council about alleged violations of human rights by coalition forces. [147664]

  Mr. Ingram
  We are not aware of any representations by members of the Iraqi Governing Council about alleged violations of human rights by coalition forces.

  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to receive the result of the investigation into the killing of six Iraqis last weekend; who is carrying out the investigation: and if he will make a statement. [148509]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]During the crowd disturbance on 10 January in Al Amarah an Iraqi threw explosive devices at United Kingdom forces who were endeavouring to calm the situation. The Iraqi was preparing to throw a further device when he was shot and killed by a British soldier. In accordance with standard procedures the incident has been assessed by the local British Commander who concluded that the soldier acted fully within his R ales of Engagement.

  The deaths of the other five Iraqi civilians were not caused by British forces. Any investigation will be a matter for the relevant Iraqi authorities.
  1181W
  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the liaison between the Multinational Division (South East) and community and religious leaders in Basrah. [143743]

  Mr. Ingram
  There is a wide variety of liaison activities conducted with community and religious groups on a frequent basis including by the General Officer Commanding United Kingdom forces. Meetings are held on a one to one basis with community and other influential leaders, governors, clerics and police officials. Larger meetings are held with representative associations such as local, tribal and provincial councils, political parties and provincial security committees. In addition the Division liaises on a more informal basis with professional groupings such as lawyers and academics.

  Military Equipment
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what riot control equipment is provided to British forces in the Gulf; in what circumstances this equipment is deployed; and whether it is available to all forces personnel who need it. [153049]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 5 February 2004]Seven riot control packs are currently provided to British forces in the Gulf. Each pack supplies an 80-man company and includes batons, shields, visor helmets and baton guns. This equipment is available to British forces personnel who are deployed to support the Iraqi police service in the maintenance of public order and is used in accordance with the Rules of Engagement for Operation Telic.

  Ministry of Defence Police
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Ministry of Defence Police is expected to make efficiency savings. [152239]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Ministry of Defence Police (MDP) is required to identify, and make, efficiency savings through the departmental financial planning process.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Ministry of Defence Police stations have been closed in the past two years; and what representations he has received from police forces about the closure of Ministry of Defence Police stations. [152240]

  Mr. Caplin
  Ministry of Defence Police (MDP) station closures, during the last two years are detailed below:

  MOD Police Station

  Date of closure

  RO Nottingham

  8 February 2002

  ATR Lichfield

  25 March 2002

  HMS Cambridge

  31 March 2002

  AFC Harrogate

  29 July 2002

  Netheravon

  30 September 2002

  West Freugh

  30 September 2002

  Longcross Barracks

  30 November 2002

  DERA Pendine

  30 November 2002

  DERA Shoeburyness

  January 2003

  HMS Forest Moor

  31 October 2003

  Feltham Station

  30 January 2004

  1182W
  In addition, the MDP Agency Management Board have determined that MDP Area Policing Teams will be replaced by Divisional Support Groups (DSGs) in April 2004, involving some changes of locations. Mr. C. D. Lee, Deputy Chief Constable, Dorset Police and Mr. S. Long, Deputy Chief Constable, Wiltshire Constabulary, have both written to the Chief Constable, MDP about the planned MDP DSGs.

  Naval Ships (Sales Abroad)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Disposal Services Agency has given the Indian Government a quote for the sale of(a) HMS Invincible and (b) Sea Harrier FA2s. [152223]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Disposal Services Agency has had no communication with the Indian Government with regard to the sale of either HMS Invincible or Sea Harrier FA2s.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Disposals Services Agency has given the Chilean Government a quote for the sale of(a) Type 23 frigates and (b) Type 42 destroyers. [152224]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence maintains a dialogue with the Chilean Government with regard to Chile's future equipment requirements.

  However, the Disposal Services Agency has made no formal proposals to the Chilean Government with regard to the sale of either Type 23 frigates or Type 42 destroyers.

  Operation Telic (Helicopter Crashes)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Board of Inquiry into the crash of two Sea King helicopters during Operation Telic will present its findings to his Department; and if he will make a statement. [152225]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Board of Inquiry reported on 29 April 2003. The Convening Officer at FLEET Headquarters confirmed that the BOI had fulfilled its Terms of Reference on 1 May 2003. Work was then undertaken by FLEET Headquarters to consider the recommendations, determine how matters could be taken forward and to consider the likely implications for other programmes and operations. This staffing work, which involved other agencies and included drawing up the timetable for implementing changes to operating procedures, was completed in November 2003.

  A full technical investigation, undertaken in parallel by the Royal Navy Flight Safety and Accident Investigation Centre is still under way, and the report of its findings is not expected for some time. These findings will be given in a Military Aircraft Accident Summary that will be placed in the Library of the House in due course.

  Procurement
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what monitoring system is in place to ensure consistency in the way that procurement competitions are held in each area of his Department. [151537]
  1183W
  Mr. Ingram
  The MOD does not have a single monitoring system in place to ensure consistency in the way that procurement competitions are undertaken. However competitive tendering and evaluation procedures are supported by strong processes operating within well established policy, including formally delegated responsibility and authority, which in itself drives consistency of approach in line with both European Directives and national law. The quality, impartiality and competence of the procurement staff who apply this policy also ensures consistency.

  RAF Machrihanish
  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the suitability of RAF Machrihanish for storing radioactive waste. [153406]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 6 February 2004]I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 4 February 2004,Official Report, column 889W. RAF Machrihanish, along with a number of other sites, is currently being assessed for suitability to store radioactive material under Project ISOLUS. If any of these sites are found to be suitable in principle, public consultation, similar to that conducted at those sites already named in the outline proposals received from industry, will be undertaken.

  Regimental Bands
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the current strength of each regimental band in the armed forces is; and if he will make a statement. [151189]

  Mr. Ingram
  The trained strength of each Services bands are as follows:

  Regimental band

  Strength

  Naval Service1,2

  Royal Marines Britannia Royal Naval College Band

  40

  Royal Marines Commando Training Centre Band

  45

  HQ Band Service

  10

  Royal Marines School of Music

  35

  Royal Marines Band Plymouth

  70

  Royal Marines Band Portsmouth

  85

  Royal Marines Band Scotland

  45

  Army3,4

  Life Guards

  30

  Blue and Royals

  30

  Dragoon Guards

  30

  Hussars and Light Dragoons

  30

  Royal Lancers

  30

  Royal Tank Regiment

  30

  Royal Artillery

  45

  Royal Engineers

  35

  Royal Signals

  30

  Grenadier Guards

  50

  Coldstream Guards

  45

  Scots Guards

  50

  Irish Guards

  45

  Welsh Guards

  45

  Highland

  35

  Lowland

  30

  Queens (Minden)

  30

  Queens (Normandy)

  30

  Kings (Waterloo)

  35

  Kings (Normandy)

  35

  1184W

  Regimental band

  Strength

  Prince of Wales (Lucknow)

  30

  Prince of Wales (Clive)

  35

  Light Division

  40

  Royal Irish Regiment

  35

  Parachute

  30

  Army Air Corps

  30

  Royal Logistic Corps

  35

  Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers

  30

  Adjutant General's Corps

  Gurkha (GURTAM)

  Royal Air Force5,6

  Central Band of the RAF

  80

  Band of the RAF Regiment

  40

  Music Detachment at Cranwell

  40

  1 Royal Marines band service data provided by DASA.

  2 Strength as at 1 December 2003 and excludes 20 personnel not assigned to a Band unit. These individuals are usually deployed as Volunteer Band Instructors.

  3 Data supplied by Corps of Army Music (CAM).

  4 Strength as at 30 January 2004.

  5 Officers Music Branch and Other Ranks Musicians data supplied by DASA.

  6 Strength as at 1 December 2003 and excludes 10 personnel based at HQ Music Services in Uxbridge.

  Note:

  All figures include Officers and Other Ranks and have been rounded to the nearest five.

  South African Defence Minister (Visit)
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether(a) ministers and (b) officials from his Department met the former South African Defence Minister, Mr. Joe Modise, when he visited the UK during 1998; and whether his Department was informed of the visit by Mr. Modise to the UK and of the purpose of his visit. [151396]

  Mr. Ingram
  The former South African Defence Minister, Mr. Joe Modise met with Ministers and officials of the Ministry of Defence both in the United Kingdom and overseas in 1997. No record has been identified of an official visit to the UK in 1998 by Mr. Modise.

  Spearfish Torpedo
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress in replacing the Spearfish heavyweight torpedo. [152005]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence is currently considering potential replacements for the Spearfish torpedo as part of its Submarine Launched Underwater Weapon programme. This is in the Concept Phase of its Acquisition Cycle and a number of possible enhancements are being investigated.

  Welsh Regiments and Battalions
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) regiments based in Wales were deployed in Iraq and (b) soldiers from Welsh battalions are stationed in Iraq. [151741]

  Mr. Ingram
  The only regiment currently based in Wales to have deployed to Iraq is the 14th Signal Regiment.
  1185W
  Approximately 480 soldiers from the 1st Battalion, The Royal Regiment of Wales and approximately 30 territorial army soldiers from the Royal Welch Regiment, are currently deployed on Operation Telic.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Children's Centres
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what health care is provided to children in children's centres. [151121]

  Margaret Hodge
  Children's centres provide an opportunity for the enhancement and reshaping of health services for families with young children in the most disadvantaged areas of England. Services will vary according to local need but all children's centres must provide access to child and family health services. These services will include:

  ante-natal advice and support for parents;

  information and guidance on breast feeding, hygiene, nutrition and safety;

  identification, support and care for those suffering from maternal depression, ante-natally and post-natally;

  speech and language and other specialist support; and

  smoking cessation interventions.

  Health professionals will work with other Early Years professionals in education, family support and child care to ensure children's needs are met in an integrated way.

  Access Premium
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what amount of Access Premium has been allocated to each higher education institution. [153064]

  Alan Johnson
  The amount of funding for widening access and improving retention for each higher education institution in 2003/04 is set out in table 1 of the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) publication 'Recurrent Grants for 2003–04, final allocations (2003/53)'. A copy of this document is available on the HEFCE's website athttp://www. hefce.ac.uk/Pubs/hefce/2003/03_53/.

  Access to Education
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) whether he enforces the statutory guidance document on access to education for children and young people with medical needs of November 2001; [151853]

  (2) when he last had reason to intervene in a local education authority's failure to implement the statutory guidance contained within the access to education for children and young people with medical needs document of November 2001; how many times in each of the last two years he has had to intervene; and what plans he has to update these guidelines. [151854]

  Margaret Hodge
  In November 2001, the Department for Education and Skills, jointly with the Department of Health, published statutory guidance, "Access to 1186W
  Education for Children and Young People with Medical Needs", which sets out national minimum standards of education for those children and young people who cannot attend school due to illness. This is statutory guidance and local education authorities (LEAs) must have regard to it. The needs of this group of children and young people are often complex. There is therefore an expectation that LEAs should be sensible in their implementation of the guidance.

  The DfES has been working to ensure that LEAs and schools are aware of their responsibilities under the guidance. The DfES has sponsored research on mapping best practice, including self evaluation tools for those working in the field. Also, Ofsted published last year a survey report on education provision for children with medical needs. A series of seminars is planned this year to disseminate the findings and recommendations of the Ofsted report and to further raise awareness of the statutory guidance.

  The guidance flows from section 19 of the Education Act 1996, which places a duty on LEAs to provide "suitable education" for children of compulsory school age who cannot attend school because they are ill or excluded. The Secretary of State has not issued any directions to LEAs in the last two years for failing to provide suitable education for children who cannot attend school due to illness.

  Feedback on the guidance from those working with children and young people with medical needs is that it has had a positive impact. There are therefore no current plans to update the guidance.

  Children's Fund
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what grants have been made from the Children's Fund since it was set up. [152017]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Children's Fund programme was launched in November 2001 to fund the delivery of preventative services through 149 partnerships for 5 to 13-year-olds at risk. £187 million was made available to Children's Fund partnerships under in the 2000 Spending Review and £450 million in the 2002 Spending Review. The funding has mainly been distributed through the local partnerships. However, £21 million has been allocated to street crime initiative; £25 million to the development of the identification, and tracking project; £5.4 million for small grants to support for example child contact centres and £2.2 million for Young Recovery Projects.

  Children's Homes
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will provide the latest available figures for the number of places for children in privately-run children's homes in each county in England. [151315]

  Margaret Hodge
  Figures on the number of places for children in privately-run children's homes in each county in England are not collected by this Department. Information at 19 January 2004 is available from the National Care Standards Commission (NCSC) and
  1187W
  their most recent figures, collected by NCSC region, are shown in the table. Information is not available at county level.

  Number of independent places in privately-run children's homes at 19 January 2004

  NCSC region

  Number

  North West

  1,000

  South East

  992

  London

  693

  South West

  660

  West Midlands

  658

  East Midlands

  287

  Yorkshire and Humber

  272

  Eastern

  252

  North East

  166

  England

  4,980

  Source:

  National Care Standards Commission.

  Children's Services
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much earmarked funding has been provided to local authorities for children's services in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [146732]

  Margaret Hodge
  For financial years 2003–04, 2004–05 and 2005–06, planned funding to be provided to local authorities for children's services is as follows:

  £

  2003–04

  3,698,784

  2004–05

  4,020,538

  2005–06

  4,372,191

  Figures given comprise all grants to be paid to local authorities for children's services and the Children's Social Services Formula Spending Share. Further information is available in the Local Authority Social Service Letter (2003) 7, copies of which are in the Library of the House. For planned expenditure on education services, I would refer the hon. Member to the Department of Education and Skills Annual Report for 2002–03, copies of which are also available in the Library of the House.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he will reply to the letter to Mr. Simon Rhodes, dated 15 July 2003, which was sent by special delivery on 17 July and signed for by his representatives on 18 July (Royal Mail's reference: SU 4643 1881 8GB). [151577]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Unfortunately, the letter in question does not appear to have reached the intended recipient in our Special Educational Needs Division. I offer my apologies to the hon. Member and his constituent for that and any difficulties it may have caused. However, since then Baroness Ashton, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Sure Start, has sent two detailed replies dated 21 October and 19 December 2003 to the hon. Member in response to points raised.
  1188W
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he takes to ensure that documents received by Royal Mail special delivery are(a) recorded as such and (b) tracked within his Department. [151578]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  My Department has procedures in place for recording and tracking documents received by Royal Mail special delivery. Our procedures require a signature to be obtained from the end customer, as well as the mailroom, and then recorded for tracking purposes across Headquarter sites. However, procedures for special delivery documents at Sanctuary Buildings had been slightly different but have now been standardised in line with all the other Headquarter sites with immediate effect.

  Deaths in Care
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have died in care since 1992; and what proportion of these deaths have been of people from ethnic minorities. [147535]

  Margaret Hodge
  The estimated number of children who died in care in England during the ten year period 1 April 1992 to 31 March 2002 was 620.

  We believe that quite a large proportion of the children who died in care were severely disabled children or children with chronic illnesses being looked after in hospices/hospitals because they are too ill to be at home.

  Information on the number of children in care by ethnic origin has only been collected for the last 2 years from a one in three sample. The number of deaths to such children in ethnic minorities over that period are very small and therefore it is not possible to produce a reliable estimate of the proportion.

  Tuition Fees
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what arrangements will be made for the repayment of fees by graduates who choose to leave the country and work overseas. [152412]

  Alan Johnson
  Well established procedures already exist for recovery of loans from graduates living and working outside of the UK. When taking out a loan, all students sign a declaration agreeing to repay, even if they move abroad, and SLC have a range of sanctions that can be imposed on any defaulters.

  Higher Education
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what amount has been set aside for centres for excellence in learning and teaching. [153069]

  Alan Johnson
  £315 million is being made available by the Higher Education Funding Council for England, over the five year period from 2004–05 to 2008–09, for Centres for Excellence in Teaching and Learning.

  Failing Schools
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) primary and (h) secondary schools were classified as failing in each year since 1996–97. [149874]
  1189W
  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 22 January 2004]The number of schools placed in special measures for each of the last seven years and in the first term of the current academic year is:

  Academic year

  Secondary

  Primary

  1996/97

  26

  150

  1997/98

  42

  210

  1998/99

  30

  141

  1999/2000

  38

  168

  2000/01

  23

  100

  2001/02

  19

  94

  2002/03

  35

  99

  Figures for autumn term 2003, following implementation of the new Ofsted Inspection Framework from September 2003

  2003/041

  Secondary

  29

  Primary

  54

  1 May reduce pending final corroboration.

  Over this period 1,137 schools have recovered from special measures. The number of schools in special measures was 515 at the end of the 1997/98 academic year. The total has now reduced to 318 at the end of autumn term 2003.

  Foundation Degrees
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what funding the Learning and Skills Council will provide to higher education institutions for foundation degrees. [152727]

  Alan Johnson
  The Learning and Skills Council does not fund Foundation Degrees. The responsibility for funding Foundation Degrees rests with the Higher Education Funding Council for England.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students he plans to be studying foundation degree courses by 2010. [152652]

  Alan Johnson
  We anticipate that there will be about 50,000 places on foundation degree courses by 2006. Plans for student numbers, including those taking foundation degrees, for 2005–06 to 2007–08 will be determined as part of the current spending review which will conclude later this year.

  Further Education/Higher Education
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of young people between the ages of 16 and 21 years are studying at further education colleges, excluding A-Level and GCSE students. [152691]

  Alan Johnson
  At the end of 2002, 17 per cent. of young people aged 16–21 in England were studying at further education colleges, excluding A-Level and GCSE students.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the range of further education qualifications. [152688]
  1190W
  Alan Johnson
  A full range of qualifications accredited by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and funded by the Learning and Skills Council is approved for use by people under 19, The full list can be accessed through the Department's website at www.dfes.gsi.gov.uk/section96.

  The Learning and Skills Council may fund any course for use by persons over the age of 19, but may only make payments to awarding bodies in respect of their fees for qualifications approved under section 97 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000. A full list of the qualifications approved under section 97 can be accessed through the Department's website at www.dfes.gsi.gov.uk/section97.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what definition he uses of the terms(a) further education and (b) higher education. [152655]

  Alan Johnson
  Both further and higher education are defined in statute. The definition of further education is to be found at s.2(3) to (6) of the Education Act 1996.

  In essence 'further education' means:
  a. full-time and part-time education suitable to the requirements of persons who are over compulsory school age (including vocational, social, physical and recreational training), and
  b. organised leisure-time occupation provided in connection with the provision of such education,
  except that it does not include secondary education or higher education.

  The Act of Parliament which defines courses of higher education is the Education Reform Act 1988. Schedule 6 of the Act describes courses of higher education as:

  (a) a course for the further training of teachers or youth and community workers;

  (b)a post-graduate course (including a higher degree course);

  (c) a first degree course;

  (d) a course for the Diploma of Higher Education;

  (e) a course for the Higher National Diploma or Higher National Certificate of the Business and Technician Education Council, or the Diploma in Management Studies;

  (f) a course for the Certificate in Education;

  (g) a course in preparation for a professional examination at higher level;

  (h) a course providing education at a higher level (whether or not in preparation for an examination).

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on Sure Start badged higher education and further education courses. [152686]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Sure Start Unit does not badge any qualifications but works with the sector and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to agree the acceptable list of qualifications. As part of the Government's drive to improve the level of qualifications and contribute to the development of the Early Years sector workforce, the Sure Start Unit worked with universities and employers to create in September 2002 the Early Years Sector Endorsed Foundation Degree (EYSEFD): a new, vocational higher education qualification at level 4 that leads to a new level of professional practice known as the 'Senior Practitioner'. The DfES, on behalf of the sector,
  1191W
  formally recognises whether universities have met the Statement of Requirement for EYSEFD. There are now 44 universities and 96 affiliated colleges across England who offer the EYSEFD.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the successor arrangements to academic review for directly funded higher education provision in further education colleges. [152510]

  Alan Johnson
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave on 3 February 2004,Official Report, column 657W.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the process is for accessing funds in the Higher Education Innovation Fund. [152641]

  Alan Johnson
  The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) has invited higher education institutions to apply for funds from the Higher Education Innovation Fund. Guidance published on 9 December 2003 asked for applications to be submitted to HEFCE by 25 February. Assessment of applications will be complete in May and successful applicants will have clear access to funds from August 2004.

  Knowledge Exchanges
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the linkages between the research status of a higher education institution and its ability to attract high quality teaching staff. [152650]

  Alan Johnson
  Available evidence on a positive link between teaching and research is inconclusive. There are many examples of Higher Education Institutions in England which attract and deliver high quality teaching without carrying out research. My Department has commissioned a large-scale study to find out which factors are most important in affecting academics' decisions to enter or leave Higher Education Institutions. This research will be published next winter.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the cost to a higher education institution of applying for funding to establish a knowledge exchange. [152653]

  Alan Johnson
  Information on the costs and benefits associated with the proposal to establish a knowledge exchange is contained in the Regulatory Impact Assessment published on 8 January alongside the Higher Education Bill. 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.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on knowledge exchanges; and how much money has been set aside to pay for them. [152654]

  Alan Johnson
  £16 million is being provided for up to 20 Knowledge Exchanges within the overall distribution of the Higher Education Innovation Fund over the two years 2004–05 and 2005–06. Knowledge Exchanges will promote the critical role of less research intensive 1192W
  departments/groups in transferring technologies and knowledge, and in skills development, within local communities of practice.

  Personal Advisers
  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what sanctions have been imposed by the Connexions Service against personal advisers describing themselves as careers advisers; and if he will make a statement. [153059]

  Margaret Hodge
  I am not aware of any Connexions Partnerships imposing sanctions on people who refer to themselves as Careers advisers. We have asked Connexions partnerships to avoid a confusion of titles by referring to all practitioners, whatever their specialism, as Personal Advisers. We recognise the important role in the service played by professionals with a careers guidance qualification, but Personal Advisers offer a broader service to young people which cannot be adequately described through reference to a single specialist area.

  Research Grants
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total allocation of research grant to each higher education institution in England and Wales was in each of the past six years. [141138]

  Alan Johnson
  The available information is taken from the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) finance records and is given in the table that has been placed in the Library.

  School Buildings
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which education authority is regarded by his Department as having the greatest need for renewal of school buildings. [152953]

  Mr. Miliband
  We are in the course of assessing data on the suitability and condition needs of school buildings provided to us by authorities as part of the asset management process and will shortly be making information available. This will help to show the relative needs of authorities' schools in regard to suitability and condition. These needs are however usually only one of the factors that are taken into account in decisions to school renew buildings.

  Student Finance
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the demographic changes to the number of students liable to pay top-up fees over each of the 10 years from 2006; and if he will make a statement. [152573]

  Alan Johnson
  Demographic changes will mean an increase in student numbers up to 2010. The number of students affected by variable fees will depend on a wide range of factors, including decisions on fee levels to be taken by institutions providing higher education to full-time undergraduates.
  1193W
  Planned total number of students 2005/06 to 2007/08 will be set as part of the current spending review which will conclude later this year.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the governance structure is of the Student Loans Company; and whether it is an incorporated body. [152660]

  Alan Johnson
  The Student Loans Company is incorporated under the Companies Acts 1985. It has been designated an executive non-departmental public body (NDPB) by the Cabinet Office. The arrangements for internal governance are set out in its annual report which is placed in both Houses of Parliament Libraries.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much grant he has provided to higher education institutions for foundation degree students in this financial year. [152683]

  Alan Johnson
  The Higher Education Funding Council for England estimate that they will make £ million available to higher education institutions for foundation degree students in the current academic year.

  The Higher Education Funding Council for England is responsible for distribution of funding to higher education institutions for foundation degree courses. The Council funds higher education institutions on the basis of academic years (August to July), therefore the figures provided relate to August 2003 to July 2004.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what powers he plans to take to restrict the level of fee charged for a foundation degree; [152733]

  (2) what his policy is on the charging of tuition fees to foundation degree students. [152689]

  Alan Johnson
  The Higher Education Bill contains powers that will enable us, from 2006, to limit the level of fees for all degrees, including foundation degrees, to no more than £3,000, provided a higher education institution has an access agreement approved by the Office for Fair Access, or to a basic amount—expected to be £1,200—if a higher education institution does not have an access agreement.

  Students taking foundation degrees will be subject to tuition fees on the same basis as students on other full time undergraduate courses.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what financial support he plans to make available from his Department to mature students in higher education institutions. [152736]

  Alan Johnson
  Our proposals for 2006/07 are designed to help higher education students generally but one in particular will be of especial help to mature students. We expect a third of all those getting the grant of £2,700 to be independent students although they are a much smaller percentage of all students. Mature students will also benefit from the increases in the levels of student loans, the raising of the repayment threshold from £10,000 to £15,000 and the 25-year cap on the repayment period.
  1194W
  Existing targeted support already helps certain mature students who are eligible for a range of additional grants such as the child care grant and parent's learning allowance, for student parents, the disabled students allowance and the adult dependants grant dependants grant. In addition, student parents are eligible to receive child tax credit from the Inland Revenue.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total estimated cost is of educational maintenance allowances in each of the next three years. [152784]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The estimated cost of the national EMA scheme for each of the next three years is:

  2004–05—cost £238 million—estimated number of young people on EMA 274,000

  2005–06—cost £374 million— estimated number of young people on EMA 390,000

  2006–07—cost £462 million—estimated number of young people on EMA 439,000

PRIME MINISTER

  Antarctic
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent discussions he has had with(a) the President of the United States and (b) others regarding the protection of the Antarctic from physical exploitation; and if he will make a statement. [152969]

  The Prime Minister
  I regularly have discussions with President Bush and others on a wide range of international issues including on the environment.

  However, I have not had any recent discussions regarding the protection of the Antarctic environment from physical exploitation.

  The 1991 Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty sets out a framework for the comprehensive protection of the Antarctic environment, including from physical exploitation. Under the Protocol, all activities within Antarctica must be planned and conducted as to limit adverse impacts on the Antarctic environment. The Antarctic Act 1994 ensures adherence to the provisions of the Protocol within the UK.

  BBC
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of his letter dated 19 March 2003 to Mr. Greg Dyke in his capacity as Director General of the BBC; [153478]

  (2) if he will list the telephone calls made by Mr. Alastair Campbell to members of BBC staff between 12 March 2003 and 14 April 2003. [153479]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) in the debate on Lord Button's report on 4 February,Official Report, column 768.
  1195W

  Business Social and Environmental Impact Reports
  Andy King
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will restate his challenge of October 2000 that all the FTSE 350 companies should publish annual environmental reports by the end of 2005. [154275]

  The Prime Minister
  I still believe that our largest companies should take up the challenge of publishing annual environmental reports. The White Paper on Modernising Company Law (CM5553) published in July 2002 included a proposal to require economically significant companies to include information on environmental, social and community issues amongst others in a new Operating and Financial Review, where these issues are judged by directors to be essential to an understanding of the company's business. This should provide further encouragement for directors to consider seriously their company's impact on the environment.

  Butler Committee
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Prime Minister what selection procedures were used to appoint the chair to the committee investigating intelligence sources in the events before the invasion of Iraq; and what assessment he made of the views of prospective members of the committee on whether the Government was right to go to war when deciding on its composition. [153247]

  The Prime Minister
  Following precedent, I chose individuals of standing and relevant experience including members of the Intelligence and Security Committee to conduct this task. I am very grateful to Lord Butler and the members of his Review team for agreeing to undertake this task. I made no assessment of their views on the decision to go to war in Iraq.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he intends Lord Butler' s Committee to report on differences between(a) the intelligence gathered, evaluated and used by the Government before the conflict and (b) the intelligence and what has been discovered by the Iraq Survey Group since the end of the conflict. [154214]

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary (Mr. Straw), set out the terms of reference for Lord Butler's review on 3 February 2004.Official Report, columns 625–28. It is for Lord Butler to determine, within those terms of reference, the scope of his report.

  Departmental Minute
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister what action he is taking to ensure that civil servants take full and adequate minutes of meetings involving himself. [152959]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) during my evidence to the Liaison Committee on 3 February 2004.

  Freedom of Information Act
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will implement recommendation 8.1 of the Independent 1196W
  Review of Government Communications, on the use by Ministers of the right of veto with regard to the Freedom of Information Act 2000. [152960]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the written ministerial statement made by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office (Mr. Alexander) on 19 January 2004,Official Report, columns 50–51 WS.

  Greyhounds (Northern Ireland)
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Prime Minister which Minister is responsible for the welfare of racing greyhounds in Northern Ireland; and what proposals there are to include the welfare of greyhounds in forthcoming legislation. [153530]

  The Prime Minister
  Under the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 all animals are protected from unnecessary cruelty or suffering though there are no specific provisions on the welfare of racing greyhounds. This Act is administered by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in Northern Ireland for which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Pearson) is currently the responsible Minister. There are no proposals to introduce legislation on the welfare of greyhounds in Northern Ireland.

  Honours System
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to improve transparency surrounding the honours system. [152957]

  The Prime Minister
  The Cabinet Secretary has asked Sir Hayden Phillips to lead a review of the honours system. This review will look at ways in which the system can be made more open and transparent, while maintaining the necessary confidentiality about individuals involved in it. I look forward to receiving their findings.

  Hutton Inquiry
  Adam Price
  To ask the Prime Minister what efforts have been made to identify the three additional sources of information within the wider intelligence community mentioned by Mr. Andrew Gilligan in his evidence to the Hutton Inquiry. [153901]

  The Prime Minister
  Mr. Gilligan's evidence to the Hutton Inquiry is a matter for him.

  Iraq
  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library the complete report of the Iraq Survey Group. [153081]

  The Prime Minister
  The report is the responsibility of the United States authorities, specifically the Director of Central Intelligence. Publication of the complete report is a matter for them.

  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Prime Minister for what reason, following intelligence assessments by the Joint Intelligence Committee in October and December 2002 and in March 2003, the Government did not support the request by UN inspectors for more time to complete their searches. [153432]
  1197W
  The Prime Minister
  As I have said previously, Iraq was in material breach of 23 out of 27 obligations set by 9 UN Security Council resolutions over 12 years. The primary objective of UN Security Council resolution 1441 was the disarmament of Iraq and made clear that compliance must be full, unconditional and immediate, including the requirement to co-operate fully with the weapons inspectors.

  Iraq ignored that requirement; what co-operation it offered was grudging and partial, and was outweighed by the obstacles it raised to the inspectors' work. In light of this, we concluded that the UN weapons inspectors would never be able to complete the task allocated to them by the Security Council under resolution 1441.

  As I made repeatedly clear at the time, the issue was not about time, it was about full co-operation. If the Iraqi regime had been co-operating, the inspectors could have had more time.

  And as the evidence from Dr. David Kay to the US Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing on Iraqi WMD and related programmes on 28 January 2004 made clear, in his opinion: "All I can say is that among an extensive body of UN—of Iraqi scientists who were talking to us, they have said: "The UN interviewed us. We did not tell them the truth. We did not show them this equipment. We did not talk about these programs. We couldn't do it as long as Saddam was in power." I suspect regardless of how long they had stayed, that attitude would have been the same". Full transcripts of this evidence have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what efforts have been made by the Government to interview(a)Scott Ritter, (b) Hans Von Sponeck, (c) Denis Halliday and (d) Tun Myat in relation to Iraqi military capabilities and intentions. [153751]

  The Prime Minister
  The Iraq Survey Group is interviewing anyone who it believes will be able to help its enquiries. It has not interviewed any of these individuals. Any relevant information which they may have had was made available to the United Nations.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements he has put in place to monitor evidence presented to the United States Administration's inquiry into the intelligence on Iraq's military programme. [153897]

  The Prime Minister
  We shall be monitoring the US inquiry closely.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Prime Minister which hon. and right hon. Members were(a) asked by him to comment on a draft version of the September dossier,(b)given a briefing by Sir John Scarlett in advance of publication and (c) given an advance copy pre-publication. [153902]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) on 18 September 2003,Official Report, column 870W, and on 15 October 2003, Official Report, columns 233–34W. My right hon. Friend the Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith) was also briefed on 19 September 2002.
  1198W
  In addition, members of the Cabinet were provided with an advance copy of the dossier prior to its publication.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Prime Minister whether a complete list of those who were asked to comment on draft versions of the 24 September dossier on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction was provided to members of the Intelligence and Security Committee for the purpose of its inquiry published in September 2003 on weapons of mass destruction and intelligence assessment. [153931]

  The Prime Minister
  No. The Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) did not request such a list.

  Lisbon Agenda
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister what actions he has taken to take forward the Lisbon Agenda. [153452]

  The Prime Minister:
  The UK is one of the most active supporters of the Lisbon Agenda. We are working closely with the Irish Presidency to ensure the Spring Council delivers concrete conclusions which will push forward economic reform in Europe. We will also be using the Summit on 18 February with France and Germany to boost progress in this field.

  The Treasury will issue a detailed review of progress against Lisbon commitments in the next few weeks. Copies will he placed in the House Library.

  Minister of State (Transport)
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will dismiss the Minister of State at the Department for Transport. [153428]

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Ministerial Gifts
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the gifts received by Ministers between January 1998 and June 2001 in accordance with the recommendation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration in her report of 7 July 2003. [152958]

  The Prime Minister
  In March 2003, I published a list of all gifts received by Ministers since June 2001 valued at more than £40. Copies of the list are available in the Library of the House. The Government are also committed to publishing a list of gifts valued at more than £140 on an annual basis. The list of gifts for 2003–04 will be published as soon as possible after the end of this financial year.

  The Government's position on the publication of gifts received by Ministers between January 1998 and June 2001 remains as set out in paragraph 43 of the sixth report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (session 2002–03).

  Ministerial Visits
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister when he next plans to make an official visit to(a) Denmark and (b) Sweden. [152972]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no current plans to do so.
  1199W

  Public Holidays
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make 21 October 2005 a National Public Holiday. [153828]

  The Prime Minister
  Although such requests for public holidays are kept under constant review, at present there are no current plans to change the pattern of public holidays.

  Remembrance Wreaths
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Prime Minister which departmental budget pays for the wreath which he lays at the Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday. [153352]

  The Prime Minister
  This is the responsibility of the Prime Minister's Office which comes under the departmental budget of the Cabinet Office.

  United States
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister when he last spoke with the United States(a) President and (b) Secretary of State. [154081].

  The Prime Minister
  I regularly have discussions with President Bush and others on a wide range of international issues. As with previous Administrations, it is not the practice of this Government to make public details of all discussions with foreign governments.

  Water Pricing
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Prime Minister what(a) discussions and (b) correspondence he has had with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs regarding the periodic review of water pricing, with particular reference to the cost of environmental measures. [152971]

  The Prime Minister
  I have regular meetings and discussions with ministerial colleagues and others on a wide range of subjects and will continue to do so. As with previous Administrations, it is not my practice to provide details of confidential discussions, under exemption 2 of the code of practice on access to Government information.

  HEALTH

    Alzheimer's
    Bob Spink
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, following the Ombudsman's ruling in the case against Cambridgeshire Health Authority on the funding of Alzheimers sufferers, he will give guidance that primary care trusts should take into account the psychological needs of people suffering from dementia and residing in residential homes in making NHS assessments. [153101]

    Dr. Ladyman
    There are no current plans to issue further guidance on continuing care.

    The current guidance (HSC: 2001/015: LAC (2001)18) makes clear at Annex C that one of the issues to consider when establishing criteria for continuing
    1200W
    care is whether the individual has 'a medical, physical or mental health condition' which may require National Health Service care.

    Angiography
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average length of waiting times for angiography were in each of the last six years. [147269]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The average length of waiting times for angiography for the last six years are shown in the table.

    Mean waiting time for angiography (days)

    Angiograms (finished consultant episodes)

    1997–98

    96.6

    82,408

    1998–99

    98,7

    94,631

    1999–2000

    90.7

    99,170

    2000–01

    98.4

    108,739

    2001–02

    97.8

    113,847

    2002–03

    104.1

    124,353

    The Government set explicit targets for reductions in angiography waiting times for the first time ever last year and no one will wait more than nine months by March 2004.

    £65 million from the New Opportunities Fund and £60 million from the Department of Health is being invested to enable the rapid expansion of facilities for angiography, to fund more than 89 new or replacement catheterisation laboratories. This will help meet the target of a six-month maximum wait by the end of 2005.

    Anti-depressants and Ritalin
    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost to the NHS of prescribing(a) anti-depressant drugs and (b) Ritalin was for each year since 1985–86; what his estimate is of the cost for 2003–04; and if he will make a statement. [153017]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    Information on the number of prescription items and the net ingredient cost of all anti-depressant drugs, and all Ritalin drugs dispensed in the community in England, from 1985 to 2003–04 (April to September only) has been placed in the Library.

    The Department of Health does not estimate prescription figures. However, data for both antidepressant drugs and for Methylphenidate Hydrochloride appear to be a rising trend, and the data for the first half of 2003–04 suggest that the total 2003–04 figure will be higher than the 2002–03 figure.

    Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals NHS Trust
    Mr. Amess
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the board members of Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals NHS Trust in each of the last four years. [152153]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    The people who have served on the board of the trust since its establishment in June 2000 are:

    Past Board Members

    1201W

    Mr. Vijay Vasu (Chair—from establishment to April 2003)

    Mr. Terry Williams (non-executive—from establishment in 2000 to July 2003);

    Mrs. Hilda Aitken (non-executive—from establishment to November 2003)

    Mrs. Yvonne Cornell (non-executive—from establishment in 2000 to November 2003)

    Dr. Mary Springham (non-executive—from establishment in 2000 to 31 January 2004)

    Current Board Members

    Mr. Ian Kirkpatrick (Chair—from 1 August 2003)

    Dr. Faiz Alam Noor (non-executive—from January 2001)

    Mr. John Griffin (non-executive—from January 2004)

    Mr. Mark Hicks (non-executive—from January 2004)

    Ms Alison Ward (non-executive—from January 2004)

    Mr. Amess
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints have been made to Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals NHS Trust in each of the last four years; and how many have been upheld. [152159]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    The Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals National Health Service Trust was formed as a result of a merger of the Redbridge Health Care NHS Trust and the Havering Hospitals NHS Trust on 1 April 2001. Figures for complaints made to each organisation are shown in the table. Information on complaints upheld is not collected centrally.

    Complaints made to Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals NHS Trust 1999–03

    Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals NHS Trust

    Havering Hospitals NHS Trust

    Redbridge Health Care NHS Trust

    1999–2000

    —

    547

    566

    2000–01

    —

    540

    628

    2001–02

    1—

    —

    —

    2002–03

    975

    —

    —

    1 Not available.

    Care Direct Scheme
    Mr. Paul Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons his Department did not roll out the Care Direct scheme. [154147].

    Dr. Ladyman
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer given him on 3 June 2003,Official Report, column 64W.

    Children's Nurses
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many different types of children's specialist nurse there are. [145692]

    Dr. Ladyman:
    The Department of Health does not hold this information centrally.

    The Nursing and Midwifery Council only records the following post-registration specialist qualifications relevant to children: school nursing and community children's nursing. There are a wide range of children's specialist nurses working in the National Health Service
    1202W
    in posts developed in response to local needs, for example: specialists in intensive care; neonatology; dermatology; child protection and diabetes.

    Correspondence
    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter of the hon. Member for Northavon of 8 September 2003 (his reference PQ 1035979), on behalf of Mrs. Ruth Davis. [152117]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    [holding answer 30 January 2004]A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 29 January 2004.

    Delayed Hospital Discharge
    Sandra Gidley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the cost of setting up operational, financial and computer systems to manage the fining system for bed blocking; [152761]

    (2) how many extra care management staff have been employed to manage the fining system for bed blocking, broken down by (a) strategic health authority and (b) local authority; [152762]

    (3) how much local authorities have been charged in fines for delayed discharge in January, broken down by local authority; [152763]

    (4) how many beds are classified as fineable and could potentially attract charges for delayed discharge. [152807]

    Dr. Ladyman
    The cost of fulfilling the requirements of the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act 2003 was estimated at £5.5 million in the regulatory impact assessment for the Bill. Most of this cost is around improving the communication between the national health service and social services so that each patient's discharge is planned as effectively as possible. Financial systems for charging will be a small part, and minimal in areas where performance is good.

    Care management staff do not manage the system of charging; they assess and arrange the care that people need. There is no central record of the number of additional care managers who have been recruited to improve the quality and timeliness of the care packages which patients receive.

    I refer the hon. Member to my response to the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on 5 February 2004, Official Report, column 1064W on the payment of charges in January.

    Charges for delayed discharge are based on the patient, not the bed which they are occupying. so numbers will vary depending on the patients in hospital. Currently, charges are potentially payable for a patient who has been receiving acute hospital care and needs community care services from social services in order to be safely discharged. There is only a liability for a charge when that patient is delayed solely because of a lack of social services.
    1203W

    Dentistry
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of dental academics teaching dental students in each year since 1990; and if he will make a statement. [152829]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    Information on the number of dental academics in each year since 1990 is not held centrally. A survey undertaken by Universities UK in 2001 showed that there were 476 academic posts in the 15 dental schools in the United Kingdom.

    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the problem of clinical dental technicians illegally performing dental procedures in the UK; and if he will make a statement; [152830]

    (2) how many prosecutions of clinical dental technicians working illegally in the UK there were in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [152831]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    The table shows the number of prosecutions for illegal dental practice undertaken by the General Dental Council (GDC). These do not all involve technicians.

    General Dental Council: illegal practice prosecutions 2002–04

    Total prosecutions

    Total convictions

    2000

    3

    3

    2001

    20

    19

    2002

    7

    7

    2003

    10

    9

    2004

    2

    1

    The Department is working with the GDC to provide for the registration of appropriately trained clinical dental technicians. An Order to amend the Dentists Act 1984 is being drafted under Section 60 of the Health Act 1999 which, after the necessary consultations, will be laid before Parliament later this year.

    General Practitioners
    Sarah Teather
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners there were per head of population in(a) Brent East, (b) Brent Primary Care trust area, (c) London and (d) England on the latest date for which figures are available. [149900]

    Mr. Hutton
    The latest comparative figures available for general practitioners (GP) in England, London and Brent primary care trust (PCT) is for 2001 and is shown in the table.

    Between 2001 and 2002 the number of whole-time equivalent GPs in Brent PCT has increased by 15.

    The Department of Health collects figures by PCT only, not by constituency.
    1204W

    General Medical Practitioners per 100,000 population

    Estimated whole-time equivalents

    England as at 30 September 2001

    All practitioners1

    Population

    Practitioners per 100,000 population

    England

    28,854

    49,389,736

    58.4

    Of which:

    London

    4,261

    7,307,911

    58.3

    Of which:

    Brent PCT

    167

    263,629

    63.4

    1 All Practitioners include GMS Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs, PMS Salaried GPs, Restricted Principals, Assistants, GP Registrars, Salaried Doctors (Para 52 SFA), PMS Other and GP Retainers.

    Notes:

    WTE data has been estimated using the results from the 1992–93 GMP Workload Survey;

    Full-time=1.00 wte; three quarter time=0.69 wte; job share=0.65 wte; half time=0.60 wte.

    Source:

    Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics 2001 ONS Population Census.

    Height and Weight Monitoring (Young Children)
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy for the(a) height and (b) weight of (i) pre-school, (ii) infant school and (iii) junior school children to be monitored on a regular basis. [154143]

    Dr. Ladyman
    Height and weight measurements in early childhood form a part of the child health surveillance programme. Intervals between checks are determined by the primary health care team in the light of professional judgement. Height and weight monitoring after school entry is undertaken on a selective basis when there is concern about a child's health or growth.

    Life Expectancy
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the effect of obesity on life expectancy; and what research his Department has commissioned into projected levels of life expectancy of the population of the UK in this century. [152181]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The National Audit Office report, Tackling Obesity in England, published in 2001, found that deaths linked to obesity shortened life by an average of nine years.

    The Government Actuary's Department report, published in December 2003, projected the average life expectancy at birth would increase from 75.9 years in 2002 to 81.0 in 2031 for men and from 80.5 years to 84.9 years for women over the same period.

    Mindnseek Website
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hits have been recorded for the website mindnseek.net since it was established; and what evaluation of the project has been undertaken. [149863]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    From its launch in February 2003 until October 2003 (the most recent time for which figures are available), there were 3,179,390 hits for the mindnseek website. The average time spent on the site in this time was 41 minutes.
    1205W
    Evaluation of the Read the Signs campaign, of which the mindnseek website is a component, was conducted between March and April 2003. A copy of the Report of Findings has been placed in the Library. Further evaluation of the website will be carried out as part of the overall "mind out for mental health" campaign evaluation at the end of the current financial year.

    NHS Bank
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the(a) budget, (b) turnover and (c) outturn was for the NHS Bank in each of the last three years. [151568]

    Mr. Hutton
    The information requested is shown in the following table.

    NHS Bank Special Assistance for last three years

    £ million

    Budget

    Allocated

    Expenditure

    2001–02

    0

    0

    0

    2002–03

    100

    100

    100

    2003–04

    152

    152

    152

    NHS Budgets
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps he has taken to ensure that primary care trusts serving areas where targets for additional housing have been set under the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's community plan will be provided with sufficient(a) revenue and (b) capital funding to meet consequential changes in demand for health services; [151635]

    (2) what steps are being taken to meet budget requirements of each primary care trust serving areas of expanding population in (a) 2003–04, (b) 2004–05 and (c) 2005–06. [151705]

    Mr. Hutton
    Revenue allocations for the provision of healthcare, made to primary care trusts (PCTs) for 2003–04 to 2005–06 were announced on 11 December 2002. There are no plans to revisit these allocations.

    Any changes in PCT population figures will be taken into account for the next round of allocations. Preparatory work for the next allocations round, covering the period up to 2007–08, will commence shortly.

    The Department of Health has started to analyse the impact on health care need of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister growth area initiative. This is ongoing work and we are still considering the appropriateness of providing additional funding for these areas.

    NHS Buildings
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made towards the target of reducing the value of NHS building backlog maintenance by 25 per cent. by 2004. [150043]

    Mr. Hutton
    NHS Estates collects data on backlog maintenance from national health service trusts through its Estates Return Information Collection (ERIC). The latest data relate to 2002–03 and these remain the 1206W
    subject of a statistical validation exercise which will be completed shortly. Once the validation exercise is complete I will write to the hon. Member.

    NHS Governance
    Mr. Amess
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria the Health Ombudsman uses in deciding whether to investigate a complaint against a health authority; and what assessment the Ombudsman makes of convenors' reports in making decisions about investigating complaints. [152156]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    This is a matter for the Health Service Ombudsman.

    Mr. Amess
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he issues to health authorities on the timescale for dealing with complaints. [152157]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    Guidance on the operation the national health service complaints procedure was issued in March 1996, including details on the performance targets for dealing with complaints. The guidance is available on the Department's website at www. doh.gov.uk/complaints.

    NHS Trusts
    Mr. Hoban
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what rules govern recruitment by the Department of people appointed to run trust franchises before their contract has expired. [153272]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    [holding answer 6 February 2004]All external recruitment into the Department is governed by the provisions of the Civil Service Commissioners' Recruitment Code.

    NHS Waste Site Thefts
    Ian Lucas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on thefts of(a) controlled drugs and (b) time-expired pharmaceuticals from sites disposing of NHS waste. [150441]

    Mr. Hutton
    Controlled drugs or pharmaceuticals for disposal are defined as special waste and must only be disposed of at waste disposal sites licensed by the Environment Agency (EA) to dispose of special waste. The national health service is required to complete consignment notes as part of the waste disposal audit procedure required by the EA. Although there is an expectation that the NHS will undertake periodic checks to ensure that this waste is properly disposed of, the prime responsibility for guarding against thefts at the waste disposal sites rests with the waste disposal contractor.

    NICE
    Lady Hermon
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about the extension of National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidelines to Northern Ireland; what criteria are involved in deciding whether a guideline will be extended; and if he will make a statement. [152258]
    1207W
    Ms Rosie Winterton
    Officials in the Department have had preliminary discussions with their Northern Ireland counterparts about the development of links between the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) and Northern Ireland. N o conclusions have yet been reached.

    NICE guidance is freely available on its website and can be adopted by any Government or health service that wishes to do so.

    Dr. Gibson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will establish a dedicated investigation into the implementation by NHS trusts of National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidance. [153220]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    We have no plans to establish such an investigation. The National Cancer Director is currently reviewing the uptake of cancer drugs approved by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). The Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection (CHAI) will inspect against healthcare standards, which are currently under development and these are likely to require National Health Service treatment and care to be based upon nationally agreed best practice and guidance, including that issued by NICE.

    Nurses
    Mr. Baron
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses working in the NHS have been recruited from developing countries under(a) memoranda of understanding and (b) bilateral agreements with other countries in each of the last five years. [150651]

    Mr. Hutton
    [holding answer 26 January 2004]The Department signed a memorandum of understanding with the Philippine Government last year. To date, the national health service has recruited 176 nurses directly through the agreement.

    The Department has an agreement with the Ministry of Health in India. To date, the NHS has recruited 431 nurses directly as a result of this agreement.

    We have recently signed a memorandum of understanding with South Africa to offer South African and English health care professionals the chance to go on time-limited placements to the other country.

    Mr. Baron
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses working within the NHS have come to the United Kingdom from developing countries in each of the last five years, broken down by country of origin. [150657]

    Mr. Hutton
    [holding answer 26 January 2004]The information requested is not collected centrally.

    The Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) register all nurses who work in the United Kingdom and produce a statistical breakdown of their register. An analysis of the register can be found on the NMC website at www.nmc-uk.org.
    1208W

    Orlistat
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prescription items of Orlistat were dispensed in the community in England in 2003; and how many children received the drug. [152002]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    From January to September 2003, 374,300 items of Orlistat were dispensed in the community in England. The number of items prescribed to children is not available. However, in 2002, out of the 541,400 items dispensed, an estimated 3,000 were for children.

    Permanent Vegetative State
    Nick Harvey
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many requests for withdrawal of food and fluid to patients in permanent vegetative state have been(a) made and (b) refused in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [152772]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    In proceedings where a request has been made to withdraw artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH) from a patient in a permanent vegetative state (PVS), the Official Solicitor acts as a Litigation Friend of the Patient.

    The Official Solicitor has been involved in a total of 36 cases in the last 10 years, in which a declaration from the court has been obtained that it is lawful for ANH to be withdrawn from a patient in PVS. The breakdown according to the year is shown in the table.

    Year

    Number of declarations

    1993

    1

    1994

    3

    1995

    4

    1996

    2

    1997

    3

    1998

    5

    1999

    1

    2000

    7

    2001

    3

    2002

    4

    2003

    3

    There have not been any such cases which have reached the court for a decision and a declaration has not been granted.

    Prescription Charges (Exemption)
    Joan Ruddock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria are used to determine which diseases warrant prescription charge exemption. [153226]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    The list of medical conditions conferring prescription charge exemption was introduced in 1968. It was agreed in discussion with the medical profession. We have no plans to change it.

    Renal Services
    Jim Dobbin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will launch the modernisation programmes he announced to support the implementation and delivery of the first part of the Renal Services National Service Framework; whether the programmes will take account of the views of all stakeholders involved in the renal
    1209W
    field; whether his Department will be running implementation workshops for primary care trusts; and whether the programmes will be designed to help primary care trusts to meet the standards that need to be met by (a) 2006 and (b) 2014. [152965]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    The national service framework (NSF) for Renal Services—part one: dialysis and transplantation set out plans for five modernisation programmes:

    re-designing the workforce

    re-engineering elective dialysis access surgery

    re-designing hospital access (patient transport)

    re-designing care plans for partnership and choice

    re-designing the built environment

    Work is in hand to develop the programmes together with key stakeholders.

    Expressions of interest are presently being sought from renal units, with the support of their strategic health authorities, to establish two pilot sites to develop effective workforce models for renal services, focusing particularly on elective dialysis access surgery.

    Pilot sites for improving patient transport services for people needing haemodialysis treatment will be sought later this year. This programme will complement other work to develop a framework of eligibility criteria for all people who use patient transport services.

    A patient conference on care plans and choice was held in December 2003 and the outputs from that are informing the next stage of this programme.

    A new Health Building Note on satellite dialysis units was published on 14 January and further guidance on main renal units and transplant centres will follow later this year.

    We have announced that a renal advisory group is being set up ensure that part two of the NSF is prepared with implementation in mind, and to provide national advice to support the pilot programmes, which will be key to implementation of part one. The advisory group will be able to form a view on how local arrangements are developing and how renal networks are shaping up.

    Saxon Square Health Centre (Christchurch)
    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health on which date the health centre at Saxon Square, Christchurch was vacated by the NHS; what steps have been taken by the NHS to dispose of the building; and how much has been spent on(a) security and (b) rates on the property since its vacation. [150535]

    Mr. Hutton
    [holding answer 26 January 2004]Efforts to dispose, by way of auction or private treaty, of this second floor leasehold accommodation continue to be hampered by the restrictive covenants contained within the lease. The health centre was vacated in 1989 and work is on-going to secure an assignee or sub tenant. Figures are available from 1999 and show that some £257 and £73,600 has been spent on security and rates respectively since that date.
    1210W

    Stroke Patients
    Helen Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many NHS trusts have developed integrated care pathways for stroke patients;[153142]

    (2) how many stroke units have speech therapists working in that unit; and what proportion of their time was spent there in the last period for which figures are available. [153143]

    Dr. Ladyman
    We do not routinely collect information on stroke services at the level of detail requested in these questions. The most comprehensive source of information on stroke is the National Sentinel Stroke Audit, carried out by the Royal College of Physicians. The audit was commissioned by the National Health Service in 1998 and was last updated in 2002. The results can be found at http://www. rcplondon.ac.uk/pubs/strokeaudit01–02.pdf. There will be a further update of these figures later this year.

    Our major vehicle for improving standards for stroke services is through the older people's national service framework (NSF) which sets specific milestones for improvement by April 2004 of stroke services in primary care trusts, specialist services and general hospitals that care for people suffering from a stroke. Our document, Improvement, Expansion and Reform, which sets for the National Health Service a Priorities and Planning Framework for 2003–6, makes clear that implementation of the older people's NSF is a top priority, and that the 2004 milestone around specialist stroke services is a key target.

    Implementation of the NSF for older people is leading to real improvements in stroke services and making a difference to people's lives. The development of better services and improved standards in stroke care requires the right balance between national standards, provided by the NSF, national clinical guidelines and local control. It will be important to ensure that stroke care services are co-ordinated and fully integrated within a full range of other relevant local services.

  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Arms Exports
    Sir Menzies Campbell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list(a) arms export licences granted and (b) products exported under such licences to (i) Jamaica, (ii) Morocco, (iii) Nepal, (iv) Russia and (v) Indonesia in (A) 2003 and (B) 2004; and if she will make a statement. [151907]

    Nigel Griffiths
    Details of all export licences are published by destination in the Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls, copies of which are available from the Libraries of the House. Details of export licences approved in 2003 will be published later this year in the 2003 Annual Report, and details for 2004, similarly in the 2004 Annual Report next year.

    The Government do not keep records of exports made under these licences.
    1211W

    British Gas Survey
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 22 January 2004,Official Report, column 1452, what the (a) name and (b) date of publication of the British Gas survey was. [151801]

    Mr. Timms
    [holding answer 29 January 2004]The survey to which my right hon. Friend referred was the British Gas TIME 4 Survey published in December 2002.

    Broadband
    Michael Fabricant
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the(a) funding arrangements for and (b) objectives of broadband regional aggregation boards will be. [152988]

    Mr. Timms
    The broadband regional aggregation bodies ("RABs"), together with the national aggregation body ("NAB"), aim to provide better value for public sector customers seeking broadband connectivity and to enhance the availability of broadband (not least in remote and rural areas). The RABs and NAB will join up individual public sector broadband requirements and present them as consolidated requests to the market—delivering better value deals and driving up broadband availability by making it more attractive to telecom companies to make the capital investment necessary to provide broadband in new areas. The Government and public sector is expected to spend at least £1 billion on broadband over the next three years, and the RABs and NAB will help ensure that the most is made of this buying power. The set up costs of each RAB are being funded by a loan and/ or grant made by the relevant Regional Development Agency, and thereafter the costs will be covered by an appropriate mark up within the contracts that the RAB negotiates—the aggregation of demand by a RAB providing cost savings which will cover its expenses. Any profits which might accrue to a RAB would be distributed by way of rebate to the customers.

    Michael Fabricant
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether broadband regional aggregation boards are permitted to apply a levy on existing services included in their activities. [152989]

    Mr. Timms
    Broadband regional aggregation bodies ("RABs") will offer highest available value for money to public sector customers in their region and the costs will include a mark-up to cover their costs. Any public sector customer contemplating novating a contract for broadband connectivity to a RAB will need to consider whether to take the RA B's offer or stay with their existing contract if that offers better terms—no customer will be obliged to pay a levy on their existing contracts if they are not transferred to a RAB.

    Mr. Stephen O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action the Government are taking to promote the take up of next-generation broadband networks. [153567]

    Mr. Timms
    At the end of 2003 there were over 3.2 million subscribers to broadband services in the UK growing at 40 000 per week. The majority of these subscribers were using services with downstream 1212W
    specifications of 500–600 kbps. However, most of the major providers offer broadband services for businesses and consumers at 1 or 2 Mbps and some operators offer services at even high specifications. We expect that there will be an increasing demand for higher speed services over the next few years.

    The Government are committed to make use of broadband for the delivery of public services, for example the Department for Education and Skills has set a target for all primary and secondary schools in England to have broadband connections by 2006. As part of its support for businesses adopting information and information technology, the DTI has produced a wealth of material which explains the benefits of using broadband and how it can help business become more effective.

    Business Start-ups
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the impediments to the formation of spin-off firms from larger firms and universities; and what steps are being taken to tackle such impediments. [152053]

    Ms Hewitt
    The number of spin offs from UK universities has increased significantly, rising from 28 in 1995–96 to almost 250 in 2000–01. The latest Higher Education Business Interactions Survey indicates that in the academic year 2000–01 248 companies were spun out from UK universities, employing 10,710 people (an increase of 84 per cent. on the previous year) and a turnover of £195 million (an increase of 46 per cent. on 1999–2000). The Government have supported the increased levels of spin-offs by addressing the funding gap between basic university research and private sector investment, which was identified in our "Investing in Innovation" Strategy. This funding gap has been addressed through the University Challenge fund which provides seed funding for Universities to support spin-offs and has now been assimilated into Higher Education Innovation Fund round 2, which was launched in December 2003, with a deadline for bids of 25 February.

    Call Centres
    Mr. Hepburn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the number of call centres from other EU countries which have been relocated abroad since 2000. [153224]

    Ms Hewitt
    There are no sources of data on international labour movements that would enable my Department to estimate the number of call centres which may have been relocated from other EU countries.

    Computer Viruses
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the estimated cost to United Kingdom businesses was of computer viruses in each of the last five years. [153558]

    Mr. Timms
    The information is not collected in this way. The DTI works with business to produce a biennial survey of Information Security Breaches. The Survey is intended to raise awareness of the importance
    1213W
    of effective information security management. The Surveys do not set out to survey or measure the average costs of internet security breaches, such as virus attacks, but survey the costs of all information security breaches. Based on the information gathered for the 2002 Survey, the figures indicated that serious security incidents cost on average some £30,000 per incident in 2001.

    Work on the 2004 Information Security Breaches Survey is almost complete and the results will be announced at the Infosecurity Europe exhibition on 27 April. I expect the Survey to present some up to date information on the operational impact of virus attacks.

    Departmental Budget
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total budget of her Department was in each year since 1992, broken down by department. [148170]

    Ms Hewitt
    The total planned annual budgets for the Department are shown in the Departmental Report and also in the Main Estimates booklet issued by the Treasury at the start of each financial year. The Departmental Report 2003 (Cm 5916) was presented to Parliament in May 2003.

    Final budgets for each year would have been shown in the Spring Supplementary Estimates for each year, and, for comparison purposes, in the Main Estimates booklet for the following year.

    Departmental Staff
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many officials in her Department had responsibility for(a) science, (b) innovation, (c) enterprise and (d) competition for each year between 1997 and 2007 (i) in real terms and (ii) as a proportion of the overall number of officials in the Department; and if she will make a statement. [153540]

    Ms Hewitt
    We are unable to provide this information broken down in this way for 1997–2004 without incurring disproportionate cost.

    Business Relocations
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the number of jobs which may be lost in the United Kingdom over the next five years as the result of the decisions made by British companies to relocate parts of their businesses to other countries. [146127]

    Ms Hewitt
    We are currently studying a number of reports containing a variety of estimates, as well as submissions in response to the DTI consultation paper published in December 2003. Offshoring is not, however, a zero sum game and it will be important to consider not just the number of potential jobs that may be lost, but also the number that may be gained.

    Mr. Stephen O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with representatives of FTSE-100 companies about decisions to relocate part of their businesses to other countries; and if she will publish the minutes of such discussions. [146128]
    1214W
    Ms Hewitt
    On Monday 2 February I hosted a round table discussion with around 50 companies, trade unions and other organisations and academics on the issue of offshoring of UK service activity to other countries. The discussions were held under Chatham House rules, so there were no minutes. There was agreement that the UK cannot compete on labour costs, but must focus on value-added elements where the UK can compete, such as quality of service, proximity to customers, local knowledge and higher skilled work. All agreed that protectionism is not the answer, that location decisions are matters for companies, but that full account needs to be taken of all factors before decisions are made. There was also widespread recognition of the need to make the UK as competitive as possible, both for indigenous firms and to continue to attract inward investment.

    Energy Policy
    Mr. Tynan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the effect of ghost capacity in the importation of gas and electricity. [R] [147517]

    Mr. Timms
    I understand that my hon. Friend is referring to electricity interconnection with France.

    According to the January 2004 update to national grid's "Seven Year Statement", the England and Wales plant margin (i.e. the excess of total generating capacity over winter peak demand) in 2003–04 is 21.6 per cent. This figure includes the 2GW Anglo-French electricity interconnector out of a total generating capacity of around 68GW.

    The 2004–05 and 2005–06 plant margins in England and Wales are currently projected to be 22.7 per cent. and 22.3 per cent. respectively. Under these circumstances, the French interconnector would account for a lower share of the plant margin than at present.

    The interconnector therefore makes a significant contribution to total generating capacity in England and Wales at times of winter peak demand.

    EU Quick Start Programme
    Mr. Redwood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action the UK is taking to comply with EU Quick Start programme objectives in broadband networks. [151496]

    Mr. Timms
    The Government believe that the Quick Start initiative is a sensible way for the community to proceed with aspects of Lisbon agenda. The Government have written to interested parties in the UK to canvass interest in the suggested broadband projects and awaits responses with interest.

    Gas/Electricity Market
    Mr. Laxton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how electricity prices have changed for(a) industrial and commercial users and (b) domestic users since the introduction of the New Electricity Trading Arrangements. [153319]
    1215W
    Mr. Timms
    The following table sets out the changes in electricity prices since the introduction of the New Electricity Trading Arrangements.

    Percentage

    Real terms

    Current terms

    Domestic

    -9.5

    +2.1

    Industrial

    -14.3

    -7.8

    (-7.3 including CCL)

    (-0.3 including CCL)

    Notes:

    1. The percentage change is for the period Q1 2001 to Q3 2003, which are the latest data available.

    2. Prices for commercial users are not available.

    3. 'Real Terms' means that the effect of inflation has been removed by using the GDP deflator, an inflationary indicator for the whole economy.

    Source:

    ONS and DTI

    Industrial Injury Claims
    John Mann
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action is being taken against claim handling companies acting as intermediaries between solicitors and miners with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and vibration white finger who charge up to 25 per cent. of the final award. [153531]

    Nigel Griffiths
    With regard to the work of claim handling agents, we have included in all our publicity material, both in the national and regional press and the Department's miners newsletter, references to the fact there should be no need for any organisations processing claims to charge claimants a fee or deduct any compensation and that if any claim handling firm suggests other arrangements claimants should seek advice elsewhere.

    The Department is aware of the concerns raised about the work of claim handling companies and Lord Falconer, as Constitutional Affairs Secretary, launched a wide-ranging independent review of the regulation of the legal services market in July last year. The review is due to report by the end of 2004 and a consultation document will be issued shortly.

    Industrial Participation Agreements (South Africa)
    Mr. Simon Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) on what date the official seconded by the British Joint Steering Committee on the Industrial Participation Agreements in South Africa was seconded to the South African Department of Trade and Industry; and on what date the secondment ends; [151391]

    (2) from what Department the official seconded by the British Joint Steering Committee on the Industrial Participation Agreements in South Africa came to the South African Department of Trade and Industry. [151392]

    Mr. Ingram
    I have been asked to reply.

    In accordance with an undertaking given by the Prime Minister to President Mbeki, the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence seconded an official to the South African Department of Trade and Industry in March 2000 in the role of Offset Adviser. The secondment
    1216W
    ended in April 2002. Since that time the UK MOD has supported a part-time Offset Adviser with commercial experience, in accordance with the wishes of the South African Department of Trade and Industry.

    Mr. Simon Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if she will place a copy of the reports made by the official seconded by the British Joint Steering Committee on the Industrial Participation Agreements in South Africa in the Library; [151393]

    (2) how many reports on the progress of the South African industrial participation agreements have been received by the Joint Steering Committee on the Industrial Participation Agreements in South Africa since January 2000. [151394]

    Mr. Ingram
    I have been asked to reply

    The Joint Industrial Participation Monitoring Committee has received reports from the South African Department of Trade and Industry, from Armscor and from the Industrial Participation obligors at each of its meetings. These reports have covered both the National Industrial Participation and Defence Industrial Participation programmes. No formal reports were made by the official.

    Mr. Simon Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what dates the Joint Steering Committee on the Industrial Participation Agreements in South Africa has met since January 2000. [151395]

    Mr. Ingram
    I have been asked to reply.

    The Joint Industrial Participation Monitoring Committee has met on the following dates since January 2000:

    16 November 2000

    10 May 2001

    8 November 2001

    7 May 2002

    26 November 2002

    11 March 2003

    1 October 2003

    Information Technology
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what specific initiatives her Department is sponsoring to promote effective use of information and communication technology. [153570]

    Mr. Timms
    In recent years, DTI has been promoting the effective use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) through the UK online for business programme.

    Specific initiatives under this programme include:
    a national network of e-business advisers, located in the Business Links
    production of a wide range of impartial, jargon-free information available on-and off-line
    a comprehensive website, offering advice and examples of best practice

    As a result of a decision to restructure business support within DTI, the activities of UK online for business will increasingly be integrated into the wider interests of the Department and the Business Link

    1217W
    Organisation. The decision to restructure has been a direct response to feedback from stakeholders and the aim will be to rationalise the wide range of schemes run by the Department into a small number of coherent and focused products.

    The strategy for DTI, in partnership with industry, will be to underline the business benefits that can be achieved through more effective, sophisticated use of ICT. Businesses need to become better users of the technologies, addressing issues relating to people and processes as well as the technology itself.

    Mr. Stephen O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what initiatives her Department is sponsoring to encourage internet connections among micro and small businesses. [153571]

    Mr. Timms
    Recent evidence shows, particularly in the DTI's International Benchmarking Study 2003, that there has now been an end to the "dash for access". Broadly speaking, businesses that want internet connection have got it and the dynamics are now around speed and type of access. The key issue for business is how it can unlock real value from the smarter deployment of ICT.

    As there is still scope for greater numbers of micro and small businesses to become connected to the internet, DTI will continue to promote internet connection as part of the support and advice it gives to SMEs. However, the main focus will be to encourage a more effective, integrated use of ICT so that businesses can exploit the technology fully and gain the full set of benefits that it can bring.

    A copy of the International Benchmarking Study 2003: Business in the Information Age is available in the Libraries of the House—URN 03/147.

    Mr. Stephen O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her budget in 2003–04 is for the promotion of internet use among micro and small businesses. [153573]

    Mr. Timms
    The expenditure for 2003–04 for the UK online for business programme, which promotes internet and ICT use by SMEs, is forecast to be £7 million.

    Mobile Phones (Data Protection)
    Mr. Bellingham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received from mobile phone users on the privacy of the data on them stored by network operators. [153623]

    Mr. Timms
    We have received no representations from individual users.

    However, in 2003 a consultation was held on the implementation of the EC Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive. This consultation included the question: "How should service providers gain consent to processing of traffic and location data and what information should they provide?"

    A number of interested groups responded on this issue and their views were taken into account in the final version. These comments are available via the DTI website along with a copy of the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003.
    1218W

    Post Office Closures
    Mr. Wiggin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what powers she has to delay the proposed closure of a post office. [153027]

    Mr. Timms
    None. Decisions on post office closures and relocations are an operational matter for the company. It would be inappropriate for the Government to intervene in determining individual closures. That has been the policy of successive Governments since 1969 when the Post Office was established as a statutory public corporation.

    Mr. Wiggin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recourse is available to users where the Post Office has acted improperly in a proposed closure. [153030]

    Mr. Timms
    Decisions on post office closures are an operational matter for Post Office Ltd. Every proposal that the company makes for the permanent closure of a post office branch is subject to public consultation in accordance with the Code of Practice on Post Office Closures and Relocations—agreed between Post Office Ltd. and Postwatch, the consumer watchdog for postal services. Postwatch are consulted on every post office closure proposal before a decision is made and there is every opportunity for those affected by a proposal, and the local MP, to make representations to the company or to Postwatch.

    Lady Hermon
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many Post Office closures there have been in each Northern Ireland constituency in each year since 1997. [150672]

    Mr. Timms
    The Department does not hold such data and this is a matter that falls within the day-to-day responsibility of Post Office Ltd. I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

    Post Offices (Stores)
    Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which(a) convenience store companies and (b) supermarket chains have post office branches located in their stores; how many branches each organisation had located in its stores in each year since 1997; and if she will make a statement on the continued availability of such branches in convenience stores. [152745]

    Mr. Timms
    We do not collect the information requested, which is an operational matter for the Post Office. I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

    Printer Cartridge Remanufacturing Industry
    Mr. Edwards
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures the Government have put in place to ensure the future of the printer cartridge remanufacturing industry. [153195]

    Mr. Timms
    The Government welcomes the positive contribution of the cartridge refill sector, but do not have any financial support mechanisms specifically aimed at it.
    1219W
    Mr. Edwards
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which Ministers in her Department have met(a) Lexmark and (b) Hewlett Packard to discuss the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive; and on what dates. [153197]

    Mr. Timms
    I have not met representatives of Lexmark, but met with Hewlett Packard representatives on 18 December 2003.

    Private Non-financial Corporations
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the percentage net rate of return of private non-financial corporations was for(a) manufacturing and (b) services for each year between 1993 and 2003. [153554]

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

    Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Stephen O'Brien, dated 9 February 2004:
    As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning the profitability of UK manufacturing and service companies, in each year since 1993.
    The Office for National Statistics (ONS) First Release "Profitability of UK companies" shows the annual profitability of manufacturing companies since 1970 and service companies since 1989. Data for 2003 will be published on 31st March. This First Release, giving data up to 2002 is available free of charge from the National Statistics Website and is available in the House of Commons Library. The web address of the latest edition is: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/profit0104.pdf

    Public Bodies
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the total expenditure limit for(a) BTI, (b) the Office of Fair Trading, (c) OFTEL, (d) OFGEM, (e) Postcomm and (f) the Export Credit Guarantee Department for each year between 1997 and 2007. [151831]

    Ms Hewitt
    This information is set out in "Central Government Supply Estimates 2003–04 Supplementary Budgetary Information" (Cm 5797, May 2003). Figures are available from 1998–99 (the first year for which resource information was produced) to 2005–06 (the final year of the current Spending Review period). The title of BTI was changed in the Winter Supplementary 2003–94 to UK Trade and Investment, and from the Spring Supplementary 2003–04 the activities previously carried out by OFTEL have transferred to OFCOM (Office of Communications), a public corporation.

    Radioactive Waste Consultation Paper
    Norman Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reason no hard copy of the consultation paper on proposals for intermediate level radioactive waste substitution had reached either the Vote Office or the Library four days after its official release. [153234]
    1220W
    Mr. Timms
    [holding answer 6 February 2004]A copy of the consultation document was sent to all MPs on 30 January 2004. Due to an administrative oversight, there was a short delay before copies were placed in the Libraries of the House and the Vote Office.

    Norman Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list those persons and organisations who have been sent copies of the consultation paper on intermediate level radioactive waste substitution. [153235]

    Mr. Timms
    [holding answer 6 February 2004]Around 1,600 copies of the report have been distributed to among others MPs, MEPs, the nuclear industry, local authorities and environmental groups.

    Norman Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether she had been informed of the financial arrangements between BNFL and NAC International when she commissioned from the latter the consultation paper on proposals for intermediate level radioactive waste substitution. [153236]

    Mr. Timms
    [holding answer 6 February 2004]The Department was aware of the financial arrangements between BNFL and NAC International when NAC were commissioned to undertake the report.

    NAC International were chosen following a competitive tendering process in line with Departmental rules.

    NAC is an international company providing consultancy services on a wide range of nuclear issues. We are advised by NAC that its work for BNFL amounts to around 0.3 per cent. of current turnover. Most of NAC's turnover is generated from work conducted outside the UK.

    Regional Development Agencies
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 28 January 2004,Official Report, column 375W, on Regional Development Agencies, how many jobs were created in each region as a result of foreign direct investment. [153513]

    Jacqui Smith
    The following information is taken from the UK Trade and Investment database, January 2004. The figures are collected on the basis of information provided by companies at the time of the announcement of the decision to invest, and some of these decisions are not notified to UK Trade and Investment until long after a decision is taken. There is no requirement on companies to notify inward investment decisions to UK Trade and Investment and so the figures include only those projects where UK Trade and Investment or its regional partners were involved or which have come to their notice. They are therefore likely to be an under-estimate. As well as jobs created, jobs may also be safeguarded as a result of foreign direct investment. These are not included in the following table.
    1221W

    RDA

    Number of jobs created as a result of foreign direct investment decisions announced during FY 2002–03

    Advantage West Midlands

    197

    East of England Development Agency1

    450

    East Midlands Development Agency

    1,248

    London Development Agency2

    1,511

    Northwest Development Agency

    5,925

    One North East

    703

    South East of England Development Agency

    443

    South West Regional Development Agency

    499

    Yorkshire Forward

    405

    1 East of England Development Agency does not handle inward investment directly but through a sister organisation, Invest East of England.

    2 Inward investment promotion and case handling of potential inward investors is handled by London First Centre under contract to London Development Agency. Aftercare of existing inward investors is carried out by London Development Agency, working with its sub-regional partners.

    Research Funding Gap
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps are being taken to address the funding gap between public sector support for research and private sector investment in development. [152052]

    Ms Hewitt
    By 2005–06 the science budget will reach just short of £3 billion, more than double the figure for 1997–8. Moreover, the Chancellor announced in his speech on 26 January that we will make a long term plan for science funding over the next decade a central feature of our 2004 spending review. These demonstrate the Government's strong commitment to an excellent science base.

    We are pressing forward on a number of fronts to address the funding gap between research and commercial exploitation. Direct support to universities and public sector research establishments (PSREs) is being provided in the form of proof of concept and seed corn funding through programmes such as University Challenge, the second round of the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) and the Public Sector Research Exploitation fund. In addition the Government is building up the capability of the research community to interact with business and investors. The recent Lambert Review of business /HEI interaction found that this investment is already succeeding.

    R&D tax credits provide an incentive for companies to undertake R&D, both when work is subcontracted to higher education institutions or public sector research bodies and when work is done by the company itself.

    The Government's Innovation Report (published in December 2003), describes how the DTI will develop a Technology Strategy with business, the SET base, other Government Departments, RDAs, and other stakeholders to identify key technologies with future growth potential. DTI will provide some of the funding and share some of the risks of pulling through technologies in these key areas into the market. In addition, the Research Councils will make plans for increasing the rate of knowledge transfer and interaction with business.
    1222W

    Science and Society Directorate
    Sue Doughty
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 15 December 2003,Official Report, column 646W, on the Science and Society Directorate, if she will make a statement on the Government's strategy for supporting science that is of social rather than economic benefit; and what the role of the Science and Society Directorate is in promoting the value of science that is without economic benefit. [151088]

    Ms Hewitt
    In the context of the work of the Science and Society Directorate, 'science' includes engineering, technology, medicine, mathematics and the natural and social sciences all of which have social and economic benefit. Working with and through others the Directorate aims to support activities which address all of these areas such as National Science Week.

    The Government are also supporting social research directly through the Economic and Social Research Council.

    Ensuring that all of these areas are properly addressed is a key consideration when we allocate resources to the science base.

    Skills Shortages
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent assessment she has made of skills shortages in the United Kingdom. [153568]

    Ms Hewitt
    Last week I jointly launched the National Employer Skills Survey 2003 which was the largest survey of its kind ever commissioned. A total of 72,100 interviews were conducted with employees from 27 industries. This survey provides robust and detailed statistical information about the extent, causes and implications of England's recruitment problems and skill shortages.

    NESS suggested that at any one time there are 250,000 job vacancies that are hard to fill and of these 135,000 cannot be filled because of skill shortages. The skilled trades are hardest hit by skill shortages and represent 18 per cent. of the hard to fill vacancies due to skill shortages.

    Skills gaps among those in the workforce are more acute with employers stating that almost 2½ million employees (11 per cent. of the total English workforce) are lacking skills needed to do their job effectively.

    Sunset Clauses
    Mr. David Stewart
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on her policy on the use of sunset clauses in legislation; and which Acts containing such clauses relevant to her Department were passed in each year since 1997. [149334]

    Ms Hewitt
    I refer my hon. Friend to the replies that I gave to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 24 April 2003,Official Report, columns 110–11W, and the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) on 1 July 2003, Official Report, column 217W.
    1223W

    Trade and Investment White Paper
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to publish a White Paper on trade and investment in 2004. [153544]

    Ms Hewitt
    I plan to publish a White Paper on trade and investment later this year.

    The document will set out the Government's policies relating to trade, investment and improving productivity in response to the opportunities and challenges of globalisation both for the UK economy and more widely, especially for developing countries.

    UK Company Profitability
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the profitability of UK companies has been, broken down by sector, in each quarter since 1997. [148179]

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

    Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Stephen O'Brien, dated 9 February 2004:
    As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning the profitability of UK companies, broken down by sector, in each quarter since 1997. (148179)
    The Office for National Statistics (ONS) First Release "Profitability of UK companies" shows the quarterly profitability of private non-financial companies since 1989. It also shows the breakdown into manufacturing companies, service sector companies and oil extraction companies. This First Release is available free of charge from the National Statistics Website and is available in the House of Commons Library. The web address of the latest edition is http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/profit0104.pdf
    The ONS do not publish estimates of profitability for financial companies or for public corporations. A further breakdown of sectoral detail for private non-financial corporations is not available.

    UK Productivity
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the productivity of UK companies has been, broken down by sector, in each quarter since 1997. [148176]

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

    Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Stephen O'Brien, dated 9 February 2004:
    As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question on the productivity of UK companies in each quarter since 1997. (148176)
    The attached table shows the level of productivity, as measured by output per job, for the whole economy and for the energy, manufacturing and services sectors. The services sector figures are published as experimental statistics on the National Statistics website. All series shown are output per job indices which are referenced to 100 for the annual average of the year 2000. The data shown are from the first quarter of 1997 to the first quarter of 2003 inclusive.
    1224W

    Indices1 of output per job for the whole UK economy and for three sectors, quarterly since 1997

    Sector

    Period

    Whole economy

    Mining, Electricity, Gas and water supply

    Manufacturing

    Services

    1997 Q1

    94.3

    88.4

    89.9

    94.6

    1997 Q2

    94.0

    88.2

    89.2

    94.3

    1997Q3

    94.6

    88.3

    90.0

    95.1

    1997 Q4

    95.4

    86.5

    90.2

    96.4

    1998 Q1

    95.7

    86.7

    90.5

    96.7

    1998 Q2

    96.0

    87.9

    90.6

    97.1

    1998 Q3

    96.9

    89.9

    90.9

    98.3

    1998 Q4

    97.5

    91.9

    90.9

    99.0

    1999 Q1

    97.4

    93.5

    92.1

    98.5

    1999 Q2

    97.3

    96.3

    93.5

    98.1

    1999 Q3

    97.6

    100.0

    95.3

    97.8

    1999 Q4

    98.3

    101.9

    96.3

    98.6

    2000 Q1

    99.4

    103.7

    97.8

    99.4

    2000 Q2

    99.8

    102.8

    99.3

    99.8

    2000 Q3

    100.3

    98.7

    100.5

    100.5

    2000 Q4

    100.4

    94.9

    102.4

    100.3

    2001 Q1

    101.1

    95.2

    103.5

    100.6

    2001 Q2

    100.8

    96.7

    102.6

    100.6

    2001 Q3

    101.0

    96.2

    104.0

    100.7

    2001 Q4

    101.4

    96.5

    102.9

    101.5

    2002 Q1

    101.6

    97.4

    103.8

    101.2

    2002 Q2

    102.0

    101.2

    103.5

    101.5

    2002 Q3

    102.8

    96.5

    106.0

    102.4

    2002 Q4

    103.4

    97.8

    106.1

    103.0

    2003 Q1

    103.4

    96.2

    107.2

    103.3

    2003 Q2

    103.7

    95.0

    109.7

    103.3

    2003 Q3

    104.3

    96.6

    111.1

    104.2

    1 All indices referenced to 100 for the annual average of the year 2000.

    Mr. Stephen O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the productivity of UK companies with a turnover of(a) less than £1 million, (b) £1 to £20 million, (c) £20 to £50 million, (d) £50 to £100 million and (e) more than £100 million has been in each quarter since 1997. [148177]

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

    Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Stephen O'Brien, dated 9 February 2004:
    As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question on the productivity of UK companies. (148177)
    The Office for National Statistics (ONS) does not currently produce estimates of the productivity of UK companies by turnover size bands. Official productivity estimates are based on National Accounts output data. While it would be possible to use other data to produce measures of activity by turnover size band, such estimates would be in current prices only and would be distinct from official productivity measures. Such current price measures would not be able to be related to the official productivity measures, and could only be produced at disproportionate cost.

  DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

    Abandoned Cars
    Mrs. Spelman
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what percentage of abandoned cars were set alight in the UK in each of the four years before 2001–02 for which figures are available. [153395]

    Mr. Raynsford
    In England, the Department for Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) conducted a Municipal Waste Management Survey in 2000–01 which estimated
    1225W
    that 224,000 abandoned vehicles, recorded for the first time by the survey, were removed and destroyed by local authorities.

    An analysis of national fire statistics shows that in 2000–01 an estimated 15,400 fires occurred in vehicles that had previously been abandoned. This estimate represents 7 per cent. of all abandoned vehicles removed and destroyed, as recorded by the DEFRA survey.

    Figures on abandoned vehicles before 2000–01 are not available.

    Area-based Initiatives
    Andrew George
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what progress he has made in(a) reducing the number of area-based initiatives, (b) reducing the need for repetitive strategies of area-based initiatives, (c) reducing the administrative burden of area-based initiatives and (d) improving the ease of access by (i) target groups, (ii) community organisations, (iii) business organisations and (iv) local authority organisations to area-based initiatives in each Government Department which has such initiatives; [153590]

    (2) what steps his Department has taken to (a) reduce, (b) amalgamate and (c) devolve responsibility for area-based initiatives since the publication of the Regional Co-ordination Unit's report on area-based initiatives in October 2002. [153589]

    Yvette Cooper
    The Regional Co-ordination Unit (RCU) led a review of area-based initiatives (ABIs) in 2001 which included the commitment to significantly reduce the number of separate funding streams without reducing the total amount of funding. The RCU published a report in July 2003, outlining plans to reduce ABIs by almost 50 per cent. Copies of that 2003 report are available in the Library of the House.

    The RCU also operates a Gateway for assessing new and developing area-based initiatives to ensure that initiatives are carefully designed to achieve their goals while taking opportunities to minimise bureaucracy, and make links to other initiatives.

    Council Tax
    Mr. Hoyle
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will set a 2 per cent. cap on council tax increases for pensioners; and what he estimates the cost to his Department of subsidising a 2 per cent. cap would be. [154306]

    Mr. Raynsford
    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no plans to set a cap on council tax increases for pensioners. It is not possible to estimate how much such a subsidy would cost in the coming year as this depends on the level of council tax set by local authorities.

    Council Tax Bands
    Mr. Dhanda
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to consult interested parties on the possibility of increasing the number of council tax bands for dwellings valued up to £40,000. [153306]

    Mr. Raynsford
    The Local Government Act 2003 provides for a council tax revaluation in England in 2007 based on 1 April 2005 values. As the 2001 White 1226W
    Paper, "Strong Local Leadership, Quality Public Services" made clear, ahead of revaluation, the Government will listen to the views of local government and taxpayers about council tax bands. Decisions on any changes to the banding structure will be taken nearer to the time of the revaluation.

    Mr. Dhanda
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment his Department has made of the impact of the width of council tax bands on residents of mobile homes. [153307]

    Mr. Raynsford
    The 2001 White Paper, "Strong Local Leadership, Quality Public Services", noted the concern that council tax bands were not fine grained enough to reflect difference in value at the top and the bottom of the property market and acknowledged that residents of mobile homes and other very low value property have added to calls to split band A. The Local Government Act 2003 provides for a council tax revaluation in England in 2007 based on 1 April 2005 values. The White Paper made clear that ahead of revaluation the Government will listen to the views of local government and taxpayers about council tax bands. The Balance of Funding Review has also been considering evidence on possible changes to existing bands. Decisions on any changes to the banding structure will be taken nearer to the time of the revaluation.

    Decent Homes Standard
    Jeremy Corbyn
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of(a) council owned housing and (b) housing association properties in each London borough meet the Decent Homes Standard; and what estimate he has made of the cost of meeting the standard by the target date of 2010 for each borough. [153944]

    Keith Hill
    The proportion of local authority owned dwellings in London that are decent and their estimates of cost to make decent, as reported on the 2003 HIP Business Plan statistical appendices, are in the table as follows. Information at the borough level on housing associations is not available, but using information from the 2003 Housing Corporation Regular Statistical Return for London based Housing Associations shows that they have around 15 per cent. non-decent homes.

    Decent homes standard

    Authority

    Percentage of LA dwellings that are decent at 2003

    Cost to make all dwellings decent (£000)

    Barking and Dagenham

    42

    1—

    Barnet

    58

    10,387

    Brent

    49

    25,818

    Camden

    36

    306,449

    City of London

    45

    1—

    Croydon

    60

    54,664

    Ealing

    69

    31,548

    Enfield

    69

    13,047

    Greenwich

    18

    68,477

    Hackney

    31

    1—

    Hammersmith and Fulham

    70

    39,088

    Haringey

    42

    49,486

    Harrow

    48

    11,282

    Havering

    67

    7,740

    Hillingdon

    69

    18,586

    Hounslow

    36

    39,126

    Islington

    36

    181,900

    Kensington and Chelsea

    41

    35,282

    1227W

    Decent homes standard

    Authority

    Percentage of LA dwellings that are decent at 2003

    Cost to make all dwellings decent (£000)

    Kingston upon Thames

    50

    1—

    Lambeth

    57

    1—

    Lewisham

    39

    128,414

    Merton

    68

    7,058

    Newham

    51

    143,239

    Redbridge

    74

    2,800

    Southwark

    52

    1—

    Sutton

    58

    26,726

    Tower Hamlets

    25

    202,674

    Waltham Forest

    11

    175,890

    Wandsworth

    88

    25,085

    Westminster

    32

    99,774

    1 Cost not provided.

    Source:

    2003 BPSA

    Drug Treatment Services
    Mr. Stinchcombe
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many planning applications to local authorities for drug treatment services were(a) made and (b) approved in the last year for which figures are available. [153710]

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

    HMOs
    Mr. Edward Davey
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister on how many occasions since 1 May 1997(a) Ministers and (b) officials from (i) his Department and (ii) its predecessors have met (A) representatives of Universities UK and (B) individual vice chancellors to discuss their concerns about the mandatory houses in multiple occupation licensing scheme. [153136]

    Keith Hill
    I am not aware that there have been any such meetings, but I would be happy to meet with representatives of Universities UK and individual vice chancellors to address their concerns about mandatory Houses of Multiple Occupation (HMO) licensing.

    Mr. Edward Davey
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will place copies of the responses to Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation in England, a consultation paper, in the Library. [153137]

    Keith Hill
    The analysis of responses to the consultation paper on Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation in England as well as the list of respondents to the consultation is already available in the Library of the House. However, copies of the responses will also be made available in the Library.

    Housing
    Mr. Richard Spring
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will provide further funding for debt-free local authorities which did not receive transitional Local Authority Social Housing Grant funding. [153025]

    Keith Hill
    Local Authority Social Housing grant was abolished from 1 April 2003 as part of the measures outlined in 'Sustainable Communities: building for the future' in order to allow a more strategic use of resources. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister 1228W
    announced additional funding for the transitional arrangements on 21 October 2003. In all £432 million has been made available to debt free local authorities and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no plans to provide further additional transitional funding. Local authorities remain able to provide social housing through resources allocated to them and the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme provides Social Housing Grant to registered social landlords.

    Tom Cox
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions took place with representatives of housing associations in the London Borough of Wandsworth on the decision by the Housing Corporation to reduce the number of housing associations that receive development funding. [152975]

    Keith Hill
    The Housing Corporation is currently piloting a partnering programme with a number of Associations. It consulted widely on the pilot prior to its commencement. The consultation included both local authority and housing association representatives.

    The eligibility criteria for the pilot were publicly available and associations were invited to bid to the Housing Corporation through the partnering route.if they could bring added value to the development programme.

    The scheme is a pilot and other Associations are still able to bid through the traditional route, and will be funded if projects meet national and regional housing strategy objectives, represent value for money and are deliverable, subject to available funding.

    The outcome of the pilot might reduce the number of associations developing, however there have been no specific discussions about reducing the number and there have been no decisions made on the future number of developing associations.

    Tom Cox
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many housing associations within the Greater London area will cease to receive development funding from the Housing Corporation in 2004. [152976]

    Keith Hill
    The Housing Corporation, in conjunction with Regional Housing Boards including London, are still assessing and considering the bids received for funding through the approved development programme (ADP) for 2004–05 and 2005–06. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has not yet taken decisions on which bids to approve.

    Tom Cox
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many properties have been provided in(a) the Greater London area and (b) the London Borough of Wandsworth in each of the last five years by the Housing Corporation in its London approved development programme. [152977]

    Keith Hill
    The number of homes provided in the London region and the London Borough of Wandsworth in each of the last five years through funding via the Housing Corporation Approved Development Programme is shown in the following table.
    1229W

    London (a)

    Wandsworth (b)

    1998–99

    8,518

    271

    1999–2000

    6,675

    210

    2000–01

    6,700

    140

    2001–02

    6,289

    130

    2002–03

    5,501

    116

    Total

    33,683

    867

    Source:

    Housing Corporation Outturn statements

    Local Authority Grants
    Mr. Dhanda
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what relationship his Department has found between the change in central government grants that local authorities have received in 2003–04 and the changes in council tax that they have implemented. [153304]

    Mr. Raynsford
    General grants (Revenue Support Grant, Non-Domestic Rates and Principal Formula Police Grant) increased by 5.9 per cent. on a like for like basis between 2002–03 and 2003–04. In the same period the average Band D area council tax increased by 12.9 per cent. Data for individual authorities can be found at http://www.local.odpm.gov.uk/finance/0304/changess.xls for grants and at http://www.local.odpm. gov.uk/finance/ctax/ctax034.htm. for council tax.

    Mobile Phone Masts
    Mr. John Taylor
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to amend safety limits on mobile phone masts to take account of recent UK and European research. [153232]

    Keith Hill
    The Government does not have any plans to amend the radio frequency public exposure guidelines. Our advice is based on the Stewart Report on health effects of mobile phones and base stations, which recommended a precautionary approach to the development of mobile phone technology. The Government accepted the precautionary approach and has therefore introduced measures to ensure that people's exposures from base stations meet the guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). These guidelines are five times tougher than they had been for the public.

    On 14 January the National Radiological Protection Board's independent Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation published a report entitled "Health Effects from Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields". The Advisory Group reviewed the evidence for health effects from radiofrequency transmissions, especially that published since the Stewart Report on Mobile Phones and Health in 2000. Their report confirmed that "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." However, the Advisory Group also concluded that continued research is needed.

    The Government is keeping the whole area of mobile phone technologies under review in the light of further research.
    1230W
    Mr. Amess
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will give local authorities powers to determine the suitability of sites for mobile telephone transmitters. [153810]

    Keith Hill
    Local planning authorities already have powers to determine the suitability of sites for mobile phone base stations. Current planning guidance on telecommunications is set out in the revised Planning Policy Guidance Note 8: Telecommunications.

    The installation of any telecommunications mast in designated area such as National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, conservation areas and Sites of Special Scientific Interest, and of a mast of more than 15 metres in height elsewhere, is subject to a full planning application. Certain types of development, such as the installation of ground-based masts of up to 15 metres in height, are subject to a prior approval procedure. Prior approval procedures allow the local planning authority the opportunity to say whether it wishes to approve details of the siting and appearance of the installation. If the authority considers that the development will pose a serious threat to amenity, it is able to refuse approval.

    The Government also strongly encourages telecommunications operators and local planning authorities to carry out annual discussions about rollout plans for each authority's area. Pre-application discussions on a specific development proposal should be set in the context of the operator's strategy for telecommunications development in the area.

    Planning Permission (Windows)
    Mr. Nigel Jones
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to require planning permission for reinstatement of windows which overlook other premises. [153741]

    Keith Hill
    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no plans to require planning permission for the reinstatement of windows. There is a right to install or replace windows in dwellinghouses without needing to apply for planning permission; this has relieved local councils of a potentially large administrative burden. However, where development requires specific planning permission, Planning Policy Guidance Note 1 says that it might be material to consider the question of 'overlooking' or loss of privacy experienced by a particular resident.

    Public Sector Leasehold
    Mr. Lepper
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the development of a code of good practice for public sector residential leasehold management. [152294]

    Keith Hill
    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no current plans to develop a code of good practice for public sector residential leasehold management.

    Mr. Lepper
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will consult on the accounting requirement provisions contained in the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. [152295]
    1231W
    Keith Hill
    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister intends to consult on regulations relating to the accounting provisions set out in sections 152 and 156 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 in April 2004.

    Mr. Lepper
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how often the Public Sector Leasehold Working Party has met; when it last met; and when he expects it to meet again. [152296]

    Keith Hill
    The Public Sector Leasehold Working Party first met in February 2002. Since then six meetings have been held, the last of which was on 16 May 2003. Dates for future meetings have not been decided.

    Mr. Lepper
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the terms of reference of the Public Sector Leasehold Working Party are; to whom it reports; and if he will make a statement. [152297]

    Keith Hill
    The terms of reference for the public sector leasehold working party are:

    1. To identify and review problems faced by social sector leaseholders in relation to the repair or renovation of Local Authority and RSL stock; in particular, any arising from:

    (a) the practical application of forthcoming amendments to Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (to be made by the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, when enacted) in relation to costs incurred under long term agreements;

    (b) the framing of regulations under the proposed subsections 7, 8, 9 and 10 and the financial limits to be applied;

    (c) the extent to which leaseholders are required to meet the cost of such works, with particular reference to long standing dilapidation, improvements, grounds and roads and utility services;

    (d) the effect of existing measures to minimise the cost to leaseholders, including the capping of service charges;

    (e) any differences in treatment between different schemes and the rationale for such differences;

    (f) social landlord accounting practices, service charge statements and the maintenance and auditing of Housing Revenue Accounts and analogous funds;

    (g) differences in services supplied by private sector and social landlords, and the services for which public sector leaseholders should reasonably be expected to pay;

    (h) the particular problems of managing social housing stock with minority leaseholder tenure and consider possible solutions.

    2. To consider possible changes to address issues identified under 1. above.

    The Working Party reports ultimately to me through the Head of Housing Private Sector Division.

    Retail Premises (Mezzanine Floors)
    Mr. Willis
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to require a full planning application for the approval of mezzanine retail floor space within existing retail premises; and if he will make a statement. [153837]

    Keith Hill
    Section 55(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 excludes from the definition of development works which do not affect the external appearance of a building. As a result, unless the planning permission has a condition specifying the maximum floor space permitted or expressly excludes the provision of a mezzanine floor, or the development 1232W
    is an intensification in the use amounting to a material change in the use, the planning system has no control over such proposals.

    As part of the debates in Committee on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, an amendment has been proposed to change section 55(2) to bring such developments within planning control. Ministers have indicated that they take this issue seriously and will consider it further before the next stage of the Bill.

    Thames Gateway (Housing)
    Bob Spink
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the transport infrastructure projects which are required in order to facilitate the provision of 120,000 additional homes in the Thames Gateway in such a way as is consistent with the concept of sustainable communities; and which of those projects has received the Government's commitment that the necessary public funding will be made available. [153492]

    Keith Hill
    My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced on 30 July 2003 that the Government would commit support that would enable the development of at least 120,000 homes in the Thames Gateway by 2016. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will be supporting development across the Gateway, with particular focus on five strategic locations; East London Gateway, Greenwich Peninsula to Woolwich, Barking Reach, Thurrock and Ebbsfleet/North Kent Thameside.

    In his statement, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister identified the transport infrastructure projects that are critical to supporting growth. These include domestic services on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, extensions to the Docklands Light Rail (DLR) network and bus transit systems for East and South East London and Kent Thameside.

    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has approved a consultation exercise by the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) on a proposed Integrated Kent Franchise that incorporates CTRL Domestic Services. The Government have asked Kent County Council to develop their proposals for Kent Fastrack Phase 2 and made a provisional offer of up to £200 million PFI credits to support the Thames Gateway Bridge. The Mayor has announced that he is committed to taking forward the highlighted London schemes, however this remains subject to planning and funding.

    Bob Spink
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of the 120,000 new homes envisaged for the Thames Gateway he estimates will not be deliverable without a major enhancement of flood defences; to what extent further development in the Thames Gateway may be prevented without major enhancement of flood defences; and when the Government expects to(a) agree and (b) begin to implement a programme of major enhancement of flood defences in the Thames Gateway. [153511]

    Keith Hill
    Growth in the Thames Gateway will be largely concentrated on previously developed land in existing urban areas. Concentration of the development on priority areas substantially reduces the requirement for extra flood defences since most of the Thames
    1233W
    Estuary is already protected to a greater than 1:1000 year level (possibility of 0.1 per cent. of flooding in any one year) until 2030. This includes a generous allowance for future sea level rise until 2030 and is a far higher standard of protection than in most other parts of the UK.

    There are some parts of the Gateway that do not benefit from defences to this standard, notably the Medway Estuary. However, where development is proposed in such areas, we will ensure that appropriate defence measures are put in place to provide flood risk protection standards as required by Planning Policy Guidance Note 25 on 'Development and Flood Risk'. We shall also seek to ensure that the appropriate design and siting of development is considered through an assessment of flood risk that is required for all Office of the Deputy Prime Minister funded development in the Gateway.

    The Environment Agency is currently conducting a major study, entitled 'Thames Estuary 2100', of flood risk management for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. It is expected that this will take approximately six years to report, and that proposals for the renewal and possible enhancement of flood defences in the Thames Gateway will be implemented between 2015 and 2035. Much of this improvement would have been required even if no extra housing had been envisaged.

    Wind Farms
    Mr. Laurence Robertson
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what changes he is making to planning guidance with regard to applications to build wind farms; and if he will make a statement. [153368]

    Keith Hill
    The Government's proposals for the handling of all types of renewable energy projects through the planning system were set out in draft Planning Policy Statement 22 (PPS22) published for public consultation on 5 November 2003. Copies are available in the Libraries of the House. The consultation period ended on 30 January. The final version of PPS22 will not be published until careful consideration has been given to all the consultation responses received.

  TRANSPORT

    Air Traffic Control (Heathrow)
    Mr. Ben Chapman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to conduct research into air traffic control delays at Heathrow airport. [152985]

    Mr. McNulty
    This is a matter for BAA, as airport operator, and National Air Traffic Services (NATS), as the BAA's contracted supplier of airport air traffic control services.

    Airline Safety
    Mr. Tyler
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what action the Civil Aviation Authority intends to take about official under-reporting of oil fume exposures by aircrews; [153410]
    1234W
    (2) what steps his Department has taken to ensure that the Civil Aviation Authority has details of all (a) defect reports, (b) air safety reports and (c) mandatory occurrence reporting reports during 2003 regarding fume, smoke or oil leak incidents relating to the (i) BAE 146 and (ii) Boeing 757 aircraft. [153414]

    Mr. McNulty
    The CAA receives over 9,000 mandatory occurrence reports each year and is not aware of any under reporting of oil fume exposures by aircrew.

    The current statutory framework ensures that the Civil Aviation Authority receives the data it requires on incidents that can affect flight safety. The Air Navigation (General) Regulations 1993 prescribe the mandatory reporting to the Authority of any hazardous, or potentially hazardous, defects encountered during aircraft operations or maintenance. Specifically Article 17(c) requires the reporting of any occurrence involving the impairment during a flight of the capacity of a member of the flight crew to undertake properly his or her functions. In addition, the Civil Air Publication CAP 382 "Mandatory Occurrence Scheme" gives detailed information and guidance that backs up the Air Navigation (General) Regulations 1993. Appendix B of CAP 382 includes a requirement to report each occurrence of smoke or noxious fumes in the aircraft that resulted in the use of emergency equipment or procedures.

    Mr. Tyler
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps(a) his Department and (b) the Civil Aviation Authority have taken to ensure that (i) aircrews and (ii) passengers are fully aware of the need to seek appropriate medical advice and assistance to avoid long term ill health following cabin fume incidents. [153411]

    Mr. McNulty
    The House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology's report on Air Travel and Health, November 2000, looked into the health aspects of air travel including cabin air quality. Several studies on cabin air have been carried out but have revealed no evidence that fumes would be a hazard to the long-term health of passengers. The Civil Aviation Authority is not aware of any adverse long-term health effects in flight crew that can be traced back to the cabin environment.

    Mr. Tyler
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research the Civil Aviation Authority has undertaken on the chronic low dose effects of repeat inhalation by aircrews of organophosphates and other substances leaking from engine oil into aircraft air supplies. [153413]

    Mr. McNulty
    The Civil Aviation Authority has recently investigated cabin air contaminants after a small number of events where flight crew reported the presence of fumes in the cockpit. Other, more broadly-based, international research into aircraft cabin air quality has not shown the presence of organophosphates or any other dangerous engine oil-related substances leaking into the cabin air system on a regular, repeated or continuous basis.

    Crew Relief Costs Scheme
    Mr. Carmichael
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when his Department will revise the Crew Relief Costs scheme eligibility criteria to align them with
    1235W
    shipping policy objectives to support the UK register and British seafarers employed in the short-sea sector as set out in the shipping strategy paper, "British Shipping: Charting a New Course", published in December 1998. [152951]

    Mr. Jamieson
    Revision of the eligibility criteria for the Crew Relief Costs scheme requires primary legislation. It will be implemented when parliamentary time is available.

    Freight Facilities Grant
    Mr. Carmichael
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Government plan to extend the Freight Facilities Grant scheme to include coastal and short-sea shipping. [152950]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The scheme already covers coastal and short-sea shipping.

    Liquefied Petroleum Gas
    Bob Spink
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to promote the exclusion from congestion charging schemes of liquefied petroleum gas powered road vehicles. [153729]

    Mr. Jamieson
    We plan to consult on local congestion charging guidance later this year. This will cover the scope for exemptions and concessions at both a national and local authority level, reflecting experience gained in London and Durham.

    Number Plate Fraud
    Mr. Donohoe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many drivers were victims of number plate fraud, and as a result had to re-register their vehicle, in(a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003. [153218]

    Mr. Jamieson
    DVLA issues vehicles with replacement registration numbers for a variety of reasons. No separate figures are available for those replaced as a result of number plate fraud, but it is estimated that the problem is not widespread and that numbers are extremely low.

    Mr. Donohoe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress the Government are making in combating vehicle number plate fraud. [153219]

    Mr. Jamieson
    New measures have been introduced to prevent people from obtaining number plates to which they are not entitled. Since 1 January 2004, all suppliers of number plates have been required to register with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and to keep records of sales. Purchasers are required to produce evidence of their identity as well as the vehicle registration document or suitable alternative.

    We are now working on measures to make number plates more secure and to ensure that they can be clearly and visibly linked to the vehicle on which they are displayed. A consultation paper on number plate security was issued in 2003 and in the light of comments received from the industry, the police and the general public, a shortlist of proposals is being drawn up for further action.
    1236W

    Pensioner Transport Concessions
    Mr. Hoyle
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many pensioners benefit from free travel on public transport; [153501]

    (2) how many pensioners are not entitled to free travel on public transport. [153502]

    Mr. McNulty
    In England, there are six areas where pensioners (men aged 65 and over, women aged 60 and over) are offered free concessionary travel on local bus services. These are the London boroughs, Merseyside, West Midlands, Crawley, Reading and Redditch. We estimate that 1.8 million pensioners are eligible for free bus travel in these areas. The remaining 7.3 million pensioners in England are entitled to at least the statutory half-fare minimum requirement on bus services, though local authorities can offer more generous schemes and many provide concessions between half fares and free travel, such as flat fares. Some authorities offer the choice of free travel with a charge for the annual concessionary travel pass as an alternative to the statutory minimum half fare with a free annual pass. Some local authorities offer free travel to older age groups, for example, those aged 75 and over. Some local authorities also extend their concessionary fare schemes to cover other forms of public transport—including the free schemes in the London boroughs, Merseyside, West Midlands and Crawley.

    From 1 April 2003, concessionary fares became available to men aged 60 to 64, bringing them into line with women of the same age. This includes 230,000 men who live in the six free travel areas, though West Midlands PTA is now providing half fares to men and women who reach their 60th birthday on or after 1 April 2003, who will not receive free fares until they are 65. A further 940,000 men live in other areas where at least half fares or better, are available.

    Figures are based on Office for National Statistics 2002 population estimates.

    Mr. Hoyle
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to stop the system of public transport concessions for pensioners being based on postcode. [153621]

    Mr. McNulty
    We do not intend to change the current arrangements for providing local authority concessionary travel for pensioners. The statutory requirement for concessionary fares ensures an equitable minimum level of half-fares on local buses, with a free pass for all pensioners in England. This minimum requirement was introduced in 2001 and has benefited many people where previously there was no scheme at all, or a scheme that offered less than half-fares. Above the minimum requirement, it remains for local authorities to make more generous provision, at their discretion and in the light of their own financial priorities and local circumstances.

    From 1 April 2003 men aged 60 and over have benefited from existing schemes in their area.

    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will estimate the cost of providing free off-peak travel for pensioners. [151637]
    1237W
    Mr. McNulty
    [pursuant to his reply, 29 January 2004, Official Report, c. 468W]We have made no estimate of the total cost of providing free off-peak travel for pensioners on all forms of public transport. However, we estimate that the additional cost of providing free travel on all local bus services for pensioners would be more than £300 million per year. This does not include the costs of free travel on other forms of public transport. Local authorities in England currently spend around £500 million per year on concessionary travel for all men and women aged 60 and over, disabled people and in some areas, children, on all forms of public transport including, as well as buses, London Underground, other metro and tram systems, some national rail services and ferries.

    Railways
    Bob Spink
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what the average number of miles to major overhaul was for each category of train rolling stock in(a) 1997 and (b) 2002; [153115]

    (2) what steps he is taking to satisfy himself that train rolling stock is receiving timely and appropriate heavy preventive maintenance and major overhaul. [153119]

    Mr. McNulty
    The information is not available in the form requested because maintenance regimes are complex and specific to individual types of rolling stock. All, however, are agreed between the manufacturer, the rolling stock leasing company and the train operating company, must meet Railway Group Standards and must ensure the level of reliability necessary to provide the service required by the franchise agreement with the Strategic Rail Authority.

    Lawrie Quinn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the role of independent economic regulation in the rail industry. [154173]

    Mr. Darling
    The railway is and will continue to be a public-private sector partnership. The Government attaches considerable importance to investor confidence and the need to preserve and protect the rights of private sector investors and lenders and their ability to plan and finance their businesses.

    The review which I announced on 19 January 2004, Official Report, columns 1075–78, will not change the Government's acceptance of the Regulator's determination of Network Rail's income for the next five years as set out in his December 2003 Final Conclusions and any further conclusions he may reach; and the Government will ensure that the Strategic Rail Authority has sufficient funds to meet its resulting commitments. As I made clear in my statement of 15 December 2003, Official Report, columns 122–24WS, regulatory promises will be honoured, and the Government recognises, and is content, that only the Regulator can re-open his determinations.

    The independence of economic regulation has already been clearly set out in my statement of 19 January. The Government also rules out any change to the rights of third parties, which will be protected. There is no question of weakening the effectiveness of economic regulation. The Government recognises that maintaining fully effective and independent economic
    1238W
    regulation is critical for retaining investor confidence. There will be no diminution in the regulatory protection of the private sector investors in the railway.

    The review announced on 19 January will consider how Government can control the total public expenditure on the railways, while respecting the principles set out above. It will also need to consider whether options for changes to the industry structure might imply consequential changes to the details of economic regulation.

    Railways are essential to the economy of Britain. Whatever the institutional structure, the Government will need to be at least as closely involved as it currently is in expenditure decisions and in making financial commitments to the industry and those who finance it; so that lenders to the industry enjoy at least the same strength of financial support from Government as they do today.

    Railways (Subsidy)
    Mr. Lazarowicz
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the total amount of Government subsidy for the railways was in 2002–03. [152536]

    Mr. McNulty
    In 2002–03, central Government support to the rail industry was £2,284 million.

    Road Accidents
    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the number of road traffic accidents in which use of cannabis was a contributory factor. [151136]

    Mr. Jamieson
    In a research study on the incidence of drugs and alcohol in a sample of 1,184 road accident fatalities between 1996 and 1999, TRL Report 495, it was found that 13 per cent. of car drivers had traces of cannabis in the body. However, presence of a drug in the body cannot alone be directly related to any contributory role in accidents. In the case of cannabis the research also noted that it may remain traceable in the blood stream for up to four weeks after it is taken by regular users, whereas its effect on driving is probably limited to a few hours at most.

    Routine accident statistics do not record drugs as a contributory factor. But under a pilot scheme on contributory factors begun in 1999 it was assessed that drugs of any kind were a factor in about one per cent. of injury accidents.

    Mr. Paul Marsden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the number of(a) fatalities and (b) injuries as a result of road traffic accidents on the A54 road between Shrewsbury and Telford for each month over the last 12 months; [151371]

    (2) if he will list the number of (a) fatalities and (b) injuries as a result of road traffic accidents on the A458 road between Shrewsbury and Welshpool for each month over the last 12 months; [151372]

    (3) how many (a) fatalities and (b) injuries there were as a result of road traffic accidents on (i) the A5 between Shrewsbury and Oswestry and (ii) the A49 between Shrewsbury and Ludlow, in each of the last 12 months. [151445]
    1239W
    Mr. Jamieson
    The following tables are taken from figures provided by West Mercia Police.

    M54/A5, from M54 J4 (Telford) to A5 Baileys Roundabout (Shrewsbury)—2003

    Month

    Fatal

    Serious

    Slight

    Total

    January

    0

    0

    1

    1

    February

    0

    0

    4

    4

    March

    0

    0

    0

    0

    April

    0

    0

    2

    2

    May

    0

    0

    5

    5

    June

    0

    0

    1

    1

    July

    0

    0

    3

    3

    August

    0

    0

    2

    2

    September

    0

    0

    0

    0

    October

    0

    0

    0

    0

    November

    0

    1

    0

    1

    December

    0

    1

    0

    1

    Total

    0

    2

    18

    20

    A458 Trunk Road from Churncote Roundabout, Shrewsbury to Welsh Border—20031

    Month

    Fatal

    Serious

    Slight

    Total

    January

    0

    0

    0

    0

    February

    0

    0

    1

    1

    March

    0

    0

    8

    8

    April

    0

    1

    2

    3

    May

    0

    1

    6

    7

    June

    0

    0

    3

    3

    July

    0

    0

    1

    1

    August

    0

    0

    1

    1

    September

    0

    0

    0

    0

    October

    0

    0

    0

    0

    November

    0

    0

    6

    6

    December

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Total

    0

    2

    28

    30

    1The section of A458 between the Welsh Border and Welshpool is the responsibility of the Welsh National Assembly.

    A5 from Baileys Roundabout Shrewsbury to Welsh Border—2003

    Month

    Fatal

    Serious

    Slight

    Total

    January

    0

    0

    4

    4

    February

    0

    1

    3

    4

    March

    0

    1

    2

    3

    April

    0

    0

    1

    1

    May

    0

    0

    2

    2

    June

    0

    1

    4

    5

    July

    0

    1

    3

    4

    August

    1

    4

    11

    16

    September

    0

    0

    3

    3

    October

    0

    1

    3

    4

    November

    0

    1

    3

    4

    December

    0

    0

    2

    2

    Total

    1

    10

    41

    52

    A49 from Baileys Roundabout Shrewsbury to Worcestershire/Shropshire County Boundary—2003

    Month

    Fatal

    Serious

    Slight

    Total

    January

    0

    0

    5

    5

    February

    0

    0

    9

    9

    March

    0

    1

    5

    6

    April

    0

    0

    5

    5

    May

    0

    0

    2

    2

    June

    0

    0

    6

    6

    July

    0

    1

    3

    4

    August

    0

    0

    6

    6

    September

    0

    0

    7

    7

    October

    0

    0

    3

    3

    1240W

    A49 from Baileys Roundabout Shrewsbury to Worcestershire/Shropshire County Boundary—2003

    Month

    Fatal

    Serious

    Slight

    Total

    November

    0

    2

    14

    17

    December

    0

    0

    5

    5

    Total

    1

    4

    70

    75

    Mr. Amess
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) serious injuries and (b) fatalities caused by road accidents have occurred in (a) Southend and (b) Southend West in each of the last 20 years. [153477]

    Mr. Jamieson
    Information on road accidents and casualties is not available for Parliamentary Constituencies except at disproportionate cost. Figures for the Southend unitary authority (and borough of Southend prior to 1 April 1998) are shown in the following table.

    Fatalities and serious injuries: Southend Unitary Authority: 1983–2002

    Casualties

    Year1

    Killed

    Seriously injured

    1983

    12

    181

    1984

    14

    200

    1985

    11

    232

    1986

    7

    204

    1987

    25

    213

    1988

    11

    156

    1989

    12

    163

    1990

    12

    143

    1991

    8

    97

    1992

    6

    104

    1993

    4

    91

    1994

    5

    111

    1995

    5

    106

    1996

    4

    110

    1997

    6

    121

    1998

    4

    103

    1999

    11

    75

    2000

    6

    100

    2001

    5

    82

    2002

    6

    94

    11983 1 April 1998 borough of Southend, 1 April 1998–2002 Southend Unitary Authority.

    Road Humps
    John Mann
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to issue a traffic guidance note on road humps. [152247]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The Department for Transport plans to publish, for consultation, a local transport note giving guidance on traffic calming (including road humps) in autumn 2004.

    Mr. Edwards
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the damage to vehicles from speed humps; and what compensation is available to the owners of vehicles damaged by speed humps. [153145]

    Mr. Jamieson
    In the mid 1990s, investigations were carried out into the grounding of vehicles on road humps. These revealed that installing road humps 75 mm in height (compared to 100 mm) substantially reduced the risk of vehicles grounding with little or no
    1241W
    erosion in the speed reductions achieved. Following anecdotal claims of damage, the Department commissioned, in 2001, TRL to look at the impact of repeated crossing of road humps on vehicles and their occupants. The results of this work will be published later this year.

    Section 90E of the Highways Act 1980 expressly provides that, where road humps or traffic calming measures have been constructed in accordance with the statutory requirements, they are to be treated as part of the highway and not as an obstruction. The road humps should either comply with minimum standards set out in the Highway (Road Humps) Regulations 1999 or otherwise be authorised by the Secretary of State (there is an additional special procedure for authorising road humps in London). If a road hump is not so constructed, it may constitute an obstruction or nuisance in which case an individual may be able to obtain compensation for damages that are attributable to the presence of the hump in the road. A court would determine such liability, if it exists, in accordance with common law principles.

    Ryanair Decision
    Mr. Tyler
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what implications for the air services at publicly owned airports in the UK he has identified in the decision of the European Commission in the case affecting Ryanair; and if he will make a statement. [153412]

    Mr. McNulty
    We will consider carefully all aspects of the case affecting Ryanair at Charleroi once we have received the full text of the European Commission's decision. I note from the Commission's press notice that the decision does not rule out the possibility of start-up funding for new routes at regional airports, provided certain conditions are met.

    Sea Cadet Training Posts
    Mr. Carmichael
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many sea cadet training posts have been funded by the Government in each of the last six years. [152948]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The following numbers of new starters have been funded under the Support for Maritime Training (SMarT) scheme in the last six years.

    Number

    1989–99

    498

    1999–2000

    513

    2000–01

    472

    2001–02

    480

    2002–03

    557

    2003–04

    1566

    1Estimate. Will be confirmed by year-end return process.

    Seafarer Training
    Mr. Carmichael
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much the Government have spent on seafarer training in each of the last six years. [152949]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The following amounts of funding have been provided under the Support for Maritime Training Scheme (SMarT) in the last six years.
    1242W

    £ million

    1989–99

    1.8

    1999–2000

    5.7

    2000–01

    6.3

    2001–02

    6.4

    2002–03

    7.3

    2003–04

    16.4

    1To date. Will be confirmed during year-end reporting process.

    Shipping Strategy Paper
    Mr. Carmichael
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans his Department has to carry out an assessment of the progress made in implementing the shipping strategy paper, "British Shipping: Charting a New Course", published in December 1998. [152952]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The progress made in implementing the actions from "British Shipping: Charting a New Course" is monitored during meetings of the Shipping Task Force.

    Speed Cameras
    Mr. Damian Green
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which safety camera partnerships moved cameras for reasons of effectiveness between 1 January and 31 December 2003. [149989]

    Mr. Jamieson
    All Safety Camera Partnerships regularly move cameras between their approved fixed camera housings and deploy mobile camera units flexibly between approved locations at different times.

    Mr. McLoughlin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how much money was raised in fines from speed cameras in the last year for which records are available in(a) the East Midlands and (b) West Derbyshire; [150887]

    (2) how much money raised in fines from speed cameras during the last year for which records are available was spent in (a) the East Midlands and (b) West Derbyshire; and how that money was spent. [150886]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The amounts of fixed penalty receipts from speed and red traffic light cameras in the areas covered by the Government Office for the East Midlands for the latest year for which figures are available are:

    2001–02

    Fine receipts

    Reimbursed to partnership

    To HMT

    East Midlands

    Derbyshire

    654,000

    502,126

    151,874

    Leicestershire1

    n/a

    n/a

    n/a

    Lincolnshire

    855,480

    486,891

    368,589

    Northamptonshire

    2,967,640

    2,247,838

    719,802

    Nottingham

    812,640

    778,536

    34,104

    1Leicestershire did not join the scheme until April 2002.

    Note:

    Figures for speed cameras alone are not separately available.

    It is not possible to identify West Derbyshire separately from the county. All fine income surplus to that returned to the partnerships to cover their safety camera activity is passed to the Consolidated Fund.
    1243W
    Mr. Pope
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who appointed the members of the Lancashire Safety Camera partnership; what the length is of their term of office; and to whom they are accountable. [151266]

    Mr. Jamieson
    Safety Camera Partnerships comprise representatives of local police authorities, local highways authorities and magistrates' court committees. The Chief Officer of these organisations appointed the members of the Lancashire Safety Camera Partnership. Each authority and its organisation is subject to their respective provisions for accountability and terms of appointment.

    Mr. Burns
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many speed cameras(a) there are and (b) there have been in each of the last five years in (i) Essex and (ii) the west Chelmsford constituency. [151356]

    Mr. Jamieson
    [holding answer 28 January 2004]The Essex Safety Camera Partnership covers the whole of the county. Separate information is not available for the west Chelmsford area. Details of the number of speed camera locations, for the Essex partnership are:

    Fixed locations

    Mobile locations or routes

    1999

    28

    44

    2000

    28

    110

    2001

    28

    259

    2002

    37

    219

    2003

    54

    318

    Police authorities also have operational discretion to deploy cameras exceptionally at other locations, including "community concern sites" where there is evidence of speeding causing concern to local residents.

    Mr. Wiggin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the safety camera partnerships in Wales and the revenue that they have raised for each year since they were created. [151747]

    Mr. Jamieson
    There are two Safety Camera Partnerships in Wales. The North Wales Partnership joined the cost recovery scheme in October 2001. In that year conditional offer fixed penalty fines for speeding and red light offences were £648,780. The South Wales Safety Camera Partnership joined the scheme at its inception in April 2000.

    Conditional offer fixed penalty fines for speeding and red light offences were £1,567,000 in South Wales in 2000–01 and £1,876,240 in 2001–02.

    Mr. Evans
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road traffic speed cameras there are in each of the areas covered by each of the police forces in Wales; and what the estimated revenue from them is in the current financial year. [152538]

    Mr. Jamieson
    Information on camera activity in safety camera partnerships is not available by constituency areas. The number of approved camera sites in the North and South Wales partnerships for the current financial year is:

    North Wales—66

    South Wales—357

    These figures cover both fixed and mobile speed camera sites but exclude red traffic light cameras.
    1244W
    The South Wales Partnership consists of three police force areas—South Wales, Gwent and Dyfed and Powys.

    The 2003–04 operational cases for the two partnerships included the following estimated fixed fine receipts:

    Total estimated fine receipts (£)

    North Wales

    4,280,400

    South Wales

    7,980,000

    Mr. Baron
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 22 January 2004,Official Report, column 1377W, on speed cameras (Essex), whether the sum of £1,846.480 includes the costs of purchasing speed cameras. [152694]

    Mr. Jamieson
    [holding answer 3 February 2004]Yes.

    Speed Restrictions
    Mr. Amess
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what criteria are used to determine speed restrictions in built up areas. [152158]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The Government provides guidance to local authorities on the setting of local speed limits. The guidance on 20 mph zones and 20 mph speed limits is contained in Circular Roads 05/99. That on other speed limits is in Circular Roads 1/93. Copies of both may be found in the House of Commons Library and on the DfT website.

    Tonnage Tax Scheme
    Mr. Carmichael
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans his Department has to widen the training requirement for entry into the tonnage tax scheme to include a requirement for the employment of British officers. [152945]

    Mr. Jamieson
    Members of the Shipping Task Force have been invited to submit proposals for an employment link in tonnage tax. We expect to have first sight of the proposals in the next few weeks and they will be considered without commitment.

    Train Services (Lancashire)
    Mr. Hoyle
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the most recent figures are for(a) reliability, (b) punctuality, (c) public performance measures and (d) complaints for each train operator operating services in Lancashire. [153499]

    Mr. McNulty
    The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) measures train performance by the Public Performance Measure (PPM), which combines reliability and punctuality. It is published, by train operator, in the SRA's quarterly National Rail Trends (NRT). The latest publication covers performance to the year ending 30 September 2003 and is placed in the Library of the House.

    Until March 2003, complaints data, by train operator, were published in the SRA's six-monthly "On Track" publication. Copies of "On Track" are placed in the Library of the House. In future, complaints data, by

    1245W
    train operator, will appear annually in Quarter 4 of NRT, which will also act as an annual compendium of statistics. This will be published in the summer.

    Transatlantic Air Services
    Mr. David Marshall
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress between the European Commission and the United States Administration on liberalisation of transatlantic air services. [153795]

    Mr. McNulty
    The next round of EU/US negotiations is to be held in Washington on 17 to 19 February. Some good progress has been made at earlier rounds, but major issues remain unresolved.

    Transport and Works Act
    Mr. Damian Green
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the decision-making process for applications made under the Transport and Works Act 1992; and if he will make statement. [149987]

    Mr. Jamieson
    My Department consulted publicly last September on a package of measures designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the TWA process and we are currently considering the comments received with a view to implementing improvements during the course of the year. A key feature of our proposed changes is that they are designed to secure better and fuller information at an earlier stage. This will, in turn, help to ensure that we can reach decisions more quickly upon receipt of an inspector's report. We also intend to consult in the next few months on changes to the model clauses for TWA Orders, which will help to ensure that applications are in better shape when they come in.

    Transport for the Elderly
    Dr. Murrison
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made of the effect of the availability of transport on the well-being of elderly people. [153997]

    Mr. McNulty
    The Department has a wide-ranging research programme looking into the transport needs of older and disabled people as well as other vulnerable groups in society. We recognise that a lack of mobility can prevent older people from participating in social activities and lead to low morale, depression and loneliness. It can also impact upon others, such as carers, social services and health agencies. A recent—January 2001—study indicated that the requirements of older people are similar to those of other members of society and major concerns include accessibility of vehicles, safety, reliability and cost.

    We are making significant headway in all these areas, in particular in the provision of accessible public transport vehicles—for example, over a third of buses used on scheduled services are now fully accessible—and have introduced a provision under the Transport Act 2000 that guarantees pensioners and disabled people an entitlement to at least half-fares or better on local bus services, with the travel pass being free of charge.

    Vehicle Excise Duty
    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the extent to which vehicle excise duty reflects the environmental impact of different models of vehicle. [152069]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The graduated Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) regime, which was introduced in March 2001, is designed to encourage motorists to choose less polluting vehicles by giving clear signals to them about the environmental impacts of their car purchasing decisions. Its primary aim is to incentivise the purchase of the most fuel-efficient cars, as a way of helping to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide from the transport sector. It is also designed to reflect the different emissions of local air pollutants from diesel, petrol and alternatively fuelled cars. As with all taxes, the Government keeps VED under review, and since the introduction of the scheme we have introduced a number of modifications to give greater incentives to those who purchase the most fuel-efficient vehicles. As the Chancellor announced in his Pre-Budget Report in December 2003, the Government is currently considering how the effectiveness of the scheme might be further improved.

    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received on the level at which vehicle excise duty is charged. [152070]

    Mr. Jamieson
    During the last 12 months my department dealt with 265 pieces of correspondence concerning VED from Members of Parliament the public and organisations.

    Most of the correspondence dealt with two matters:

    (a) enforcement of VED, and

    (b) whether existing exemptions from payment of VED might be extended to particular groups of motorists or classes of vehicle.

    Very little of this correspondence deals with the level of VED charged. Where it does however, it tends to be by way of suggestions that certain, generally larger vehicles, should be taxed more heavily.

    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on vehicle excise duty. [152071]

    Mr. Jamieson
    Vehicle Excise Duty is a tax on mechanically propelled vehicles. It raises about £4.5 billion annually and has two purposes in addition to the raising of revenue:

    (a) Through the licensing process it ensures checking of insurance and MOT documents, and;

    (b) It provides an opportunity to influence vehicle purchase e.g. on environmental and road friendliness grounds.

    Cars registered since 1 March 2001 are taxed mostly according to their CO2 emissions, with VED set for the lowest emitting petrol cars at £55, ranging up to £165 for the highest emitting diesel cars. UK lorry rates are related to vehicle weight and configuration and are some of the lowest in Europe.
    1247W
    There are a number of concessionary VED rates and exemptions which are sometimes subject to discussion with the various interest groups. While there will always he room for debate at the margins, the Government believes the balance is broadly right between those paying VED at the normal rate for the vehicle, those paying at concessionary rates and those who are exempt from VED.

    We have considerably tightened the enforcement of VED through the "continuous registration" package of measures. By introducing continuous registration and using modern technology, we are improving the accuracy of the register to the benefit of law enforcement and the honest motorist. To deal with short term evasion we have introduced fines for those over a month overdue with relicensing, while tackling those vehicles already outside the system of registration and licensing with enhanced enforcement using wheel clamping and ANPR cameras.
    1248W
    This should enhance the quality of the DVLA vehicle register so assisting the police in the fight against crime, and also assist local authorities track down and enforce costs against those who abandon vehicles.

    Mr. Laurence Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will re-introduce the rolling 25-year rule for exempting vehicles from excise duty; and if he will make a statement. [153366]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer takes decisions on transport taxation, including vehicle excise duty, on a Budget-by-Budget basis, taking a range of economic, social and environmental factors into consideration. The Government acknowledge the role historic vehicle enthusiasts play in maintaining that part of the country's history and heritage, but need also to recognise the poorer environmental performance of older vehicles. The current exemption for vehicles constructed before 1 January 1973 is designed to strike the right balance between environmental and heritage needs.
    1249W

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Tagging
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are tagged for the purpose of a curfew order. [151780]

    Paul Goggins
    At midnight on 31 December 2003, a total of 8,733 people were currently tagged for the purpose of a curfew.

    Anti-social Behaviour
    Bob Spink
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what advice he has given to(a) police and (b) local councils on (i) the need to liaise with each other, (ii) the protocols for publishing intentions in the local press and (iii) operational protocols in respect of anti-social behaviour legislation; [152427]

    (2) what guidance he has issued to (a) local councils and (b) the police on the use of anti-social behaviour legislation to disperse groups of youths. [152428]

    Ms Blears
    We have issued a "Together Campaign Pack" which provides information and tools for local authorities, police and other practitioners to run campaigns against anti-social behaviour in their area. It encourages practitioners to keep the public and partner organisations informed and involved in the work they are doing to tackle anti-social behaviour.

    We have also issued Home Office Circular number 04/2004 describing the owers to disperse groups contained in Part 4 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003. The circular provides information to assist the police and local authorities in the use of the new powers. The National Centre for Policing Excellence (NCPE) has been asked to produce further guidance on these new powers. We hope to publish the guidance later this year.

    Bob Spink
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a code of practice for police operations in respect of recent anti-social behaviour legislation. [153077]

    Ms Blears
    We have published "A Guide to the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003", copies of which were sent to all Chief Constables in England and Wales and Members of Parliament. In addition, we have produced some detailed guidance on the measures in the Act for practitioners, including the police. Examples of these include:Notes of Guidance to Accompany Part One of the Act, The Power to Close Premises' where drugs are used unlawfully.
    Home Office Circular 04/2004 on the use of the powers to disperse groups contained in Part 4 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003.
    Home Office Circular 01/2004 on the purpose and effect of the firearms provisions contained in Part 5 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003.
    1250W
    Information on when further guidance will be issued on other measures in the Act is contained in the Guide to the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003.

    Bribery
    John Austin
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foreign nationals are being held without trial or charge in HM Prison Belmarsh; for how long each has been held; how many hours a day they are allowed out of their cell for(a) meals, (b) religious worship, (c) recreation and (d) association; and if he will make a statement. [151472]

    Paul Goggins
    31 foreign nationals are being held at Belmarsh prison in the circumstances my hon. Friend describes. These persons are detained in respect of extradition or immigration matters. Those detained under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 are free to leave the country at any time. The date of arrival into custody for each is as follows:

    9 November 1995

    15 July 1999

    6 November 2000

    21 November 2000

    17 April 2001

    17 May 2001

    4 July 2001

    25 July 2001

    19 December 2001 (three persons)

    8 February 2002

    23 April 2002

    27 September 2002

    24 October 2002

    14 January 2003

    24 May 2003

    12 August 2002

    13 November 2002

    23 November 2002

    27 December 2002

    30 January 2003

    1 September 2003

    5 September 2003

    1 October 2003

    17 October 2003

    7 November 2003

    4 December 2003 (two persons)

    28 December 2003

    29 December 2003

    The general regime at Belmarsh allows prisoners to be out of their cells for an average of 7¼ hours per day. This will include meals, religious worship, recreation and association. Some prisoners will be allowed out of cell for greater periods of time due to the nature of their work.

    Burglary (Sentences)
    Vera Baird
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average sentence for(a) house burglary and (b) burglary of a premises other than a house was in each of the last six years. [152121]

    Paul Goggins
    The available information, relating to the average custodial sentence length for persons sentenced for domestic and other burglary (including aggravated burglary) in England and Wales, 1997 to 2002, is contained in the table.

    Statistics for 2003 will be published in the autumn.

    Average custodial sentence length imposed at all courts on persons convicted of offences of burglary, England and Wales, 1997 to 20021

    Average custodial sentence length (months)

    In a dwelling

    In a building other than a dwelling

    Burglary

    Aggravated burglary

    Burglary

    Aggravated burglary

    1997

    18.1

    45.5

    8.4

    30.7

    1998

    17.9

    246.0

    8.6

    38.8

    1999

    18.3

    45.5

    7.9

    39.2

    2000

    18.7

    48.6

    8.3

    49.0

    2001

    19.7

    350.2

    8.4

    40.9

    2002

    20.9

    350.1

    8.8

    45.0

    1 These data are on the principal offence basis.

    2 Excludes one person sentenced to life.

    3 Excludes three persons sentenced to life.

    Coroners
    Mr. Oaten
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he plans to regulate the basis on which coroners decide on the re-opening of a case. [151716]

    Paul Goggins
    [holding answer 29 January 2004]We do not intend to regulate this, as it is primarily a judicial matter which should therefore be left to the discretion of the coroner.

    Correspondence
    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter of 18 August 2003 from the hon. Member for Northavon, reference M4678/3, on behalf of Mrs. Davies, regarding victims of crime. [151709]

    Paul Goggins
    [holding answer 24 January 2004]Baroness Scotland of Asthal QC replied to the hon. Member on 2 February 2004.

    Crime/Police Statistics (Southend)
    Mr. Amess
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many murders there were in Southend in each of the last 10 years; and how many resulted in convictions. [152200]

    Ms Blears
    [holding answer 3 February 2004]Published information on homicide relates to England and Wales only. The latest available is given in Home Office Statistical Bulletin number 01/04, 'Crime in England and Wales 2002/2003 Supplementary 1252W
    Volume 1:Homicide and Gun Crime', a copy of which should be available from the Library or internet site http://www.homeoffice gov.uk/rds/hosbpubsl.html.

    Criminal Behaviour
    Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to tackle the problem of persistent offenders. [150352]

    Paul Goggins
    The Persistent Offender Scheme came into effect in April 2003. It is an obligatory component of Local Criminal Justice Boards' action plans to increase the number of offences brought to justice, aimed at targeting a small group of prolific offenders who are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime. Areas have devised their own premium service protocols which include elements of proactive policing, improved investigations and case management, priority court listings, and strategies for rehabilitation. As well as targeting core persistent offenders, who are 18 or over and have been convicted of 6 or more recordable offences in the last year, as part of their wider crime reduction strategies areas are also using the scheme flexibly to target persistent offenders defined on the basis of local intelligence. As well as targeting core persistent offenders, who are 18 or over and have been convicted of 6 or more recordable offences in the last year, as part of their wider crime reduction strategies areas are also using the scheme flexibly to target persistent offenders defined on the basis of local intelligence.

    The Scheme is supported by an information system that is shared between criminal justice agencies, enabling persistent offenders to be tracked as their cases progress through the criminal justice system, and attrition points in the system to be identified and targeted for intervention.

    On 13 November 2003, criminal justice areas were notified of the outcome of a review of the Persistent Offender Scheme. Among the key actions being implemented as part of the response to the review are: changes to the performance measurement framework, including giving credit for performance relating to local persistent offenders; and updated guidance to the National Probation Service on the Scheme, which was issued on 22 December 2003.

    The National Probation Service is piloting 15 Intensive Supervision and Monitoring Schemes (ISMs) for persistent offenders in local probation/police areas. All Schemes involve joint working between probation and police. In addition, some Schemes are testing mechanisms for involving the prison service in prerelease work with persistent offenders. ISMs target the most prolific offenders in a locality, based on police intelligence. They provide intensive surveillance and supervision of offenders, offering fast access to services and support for rehabilitation, alongside swift action and penalties for non-compliance. They involve other partner agencies such as providers of housing, education and training, alcohol and drug abuse treatment groups and employment services.

    In addition, the Government has given the courts new secure remand and tagging powers for 12 to 16-year olds who repeatedly offend on bail, funded the Youth

    1253W
    Justice Board's intensive supervision and surveillance programmes for the most prolific young offenders and renewed its commitment to maintain the time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders at or below 71 days.

    Criminal Injuries Compensation
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will extend compensation to victims who were abused or injured by someone living in their household before October 1979. [146284]

    Paul Goggins
    No. Revision of the 'Pre-1.10.79 same roof' rule has been considered whenever changes to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme have been mooted. However, successive Administrations have always refused to change it.

    David Davis
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average length of time taken to settle applications for criminal injuries compensation was in 2003. [149553]

    Paul Goggins
    The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority advise that in the year ending 31 December 2003 the average time between the date an application was received and the date the applicant was notified of the decision on that application was, for the 74,175 cases so determined, 288 days.

    David Davis
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for criminal injuries compensation were received in each of the past four years; and what the average award was for each of those years. [149554]

    Paul Goggins
    The following information has been provided by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.

    The Tariff Scheme (effective for all cases received on or after 1 April 1996)

    Number of applications

    Money awards

    Nil awards

    Average award

    1999–2000

    78,742

    39,700

    36,217

    2,904

    2000–01

    76,510

    36,924

    33,789

    3,001

    2001–02

    78,202

    39,813

    35,005

    3,150

    2002–03

    73,928

    42,283

    36,965

    3,717

    The Old (Common Law Damages) Scheme

    Money awards

    Nil awards

    Average award

    1999–2000

    3,795

    3,309

    23,907

    2000–01

    2,087

    985

    44,745

    2001–02

    1,538

    536

    71,318

    2002–03

    405

    319

    169,034

    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish all the responses to his consultation paper, "Compensation and Support for Victims of Crime". [150139]

    Paul Goggins
    Our intention is to publish a summary of the responses. All responses will be acknowledged and respondents told that the outcome of the consultation will be published.
    1254W
    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was paid by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme in each of the last 10 years, broken down by type of crime; and what proportion was paid to victims of crimes(a) when the criminal was arrested, (b) when the criminal was arrested and charged and (c) when the criminal was arrested, charged and successfully prosecuted, in each year. [150140]

    Paul Goggins
    The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (CICS) provides compensation at the taxpayers' expense to blameless victims of crimes of violence and those injured in trying to apprehend criminals or prevent crime. It does not compensate victims of other types of crime.

    Claims are determined on the basis of applications and supporting information submitted by applicants, and upon the outcome of such other inquiries about the applicant's injuries and other aspects of eligibility as the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) considers it necessary to make.

    Payment of compensation under the scheme is not conditional upon the offender having been charged or convicted or even identified. The burden of proof required under the scheme is 'the balance of probabilities' (the civil burden of proof) rather than `beyond reasonable doubt' (the level of proof required in criminal courts).

    CICA do not keep statistics about whether or when those who inflicted injury upon CICS claimants were arrested, charged or successfully prosecuted.

    The amount of compensation paid to victims in each of the last 10 years under the scheme was as follows:

    £ million

    1993–94

    165

    1994–95

    175

    1995–96

    179

    1996–97

    209

    1997–98

    202

    1998–99

    194

    1999–2000

    205

    2000–01

    208

    2001–02

    233

    2002–03

    232

    These figures represent the cash actually paid over in each year. However, in 2000–01 the basis of government accounting changed from a cash to an accruals basis, under which the recorded spend now is the amount of money committed in the year, irrespective of when payments were actually made.

    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has collated on(a) moneys paid out by and (b) funding sources of equivalents to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme in other EU countries. [150780]

    Paul Goggins
    Information about the amount of compensation paid and the number of applications received during one year under the state compensation
    1255W
    schemes in each EU Member State is given at paragraph 3.8 of the European Commission's Green Paper, 'Compensation to crime victims' (reference COM(2001)536) issued on 28 September 2001. The paper can be accessed via the Internet at http://europa.eu.int/comm/off/green/index.en.htm and then clicking on the document just mentioned. Further information about compensation schemes in other European countries can be found in 'Victims of Crime in 22 European Criminal Justice Systems' by M. E. I. Brienen and D. H. Hoegen published in 2000 ISBN:90–5850–004–7); and in 'Repairing the Irreparable: State compensation to crime victims in the European Union' by Julia Mikaelsson and Anna Wergens published in 2001 (ISBN 91–974139–1–7).

    Mr. Evans
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether foreigners who are victims of crime in the UK are eligible for the criminal compensation scheme.[150804]

    Paul Goggins
    Yes. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme operates in England, Scotland and Wales. Anyone sustaining injury there as a result of violent crime is eligible to apply. There is a separate scheme in Northern Ireland, modelled closely on the GB Scheme.

    Criminal Records Bureau
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have now been checked by the Criminal Records Bureau; and how many checks are outstanding. [143063]

    Ms Blears
    As of 31 January 2004 the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) had issued 3,283,723 Disclosures. The first million Disclosures were issued by the CRB within 10 months, the second million within six months and the third million within five months. This reflects the CRB's increased capacity to handle over 50,000 Disclosure applications per week.

    As of 31 January 2004 the CRB has 107,219 applications outstanding (excluding those that have been returned to the customer). 03,840 of these applications are less than four weeks old with only 987 applications, approximately one per cent.of the overall total, still being processed after six weeks

    Curfew Orders (Southend)
    Mr. Amess
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many home curfew orders have been made in Southend in each of the last five years. [152162]

    Paul Goggins
    The available information is contained in the table and relates to offenders sentenced to a curfew order at court.

    Statistics on court proceedings for 2003 will be published in the autumn.
    1256W

    Number of offenders sentenced to a curfew order for all offences at South East Essex Petty Sessional Area1 including those sentenced at the Crown Court where South East Essex PSA was the committing court2, 1998 to 2002

    Number

    1998

    —

    1999

    —

    2000

    8

    2001

    6

    2002

    13

    1 Covers Southend and some parts of Rayleigh, Benfleet and Canvey.

    2 These data are on the principal offence basis.

    Mental Health
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the number of people who have been killed in each of the last 10 years at the hands of people receiving treatment for mental health problems. [143057]

    Paul Goggins
    Information on the mentally disordered state of the offenders, or whether they were receiving treatment at the time is not held centrally. The available information is in the form of currently recorded homicides where the apparent circumstances of the offence involved a mentally disturbed suspect. From 1992 to 1997 the statistics record homicides by calendar year and from 1997–98 financial years are used. There is duplication between 1997 and 1997–98, but it is standard practice to provide both periods.

    The number of victims is given in the following table.

    Number of victims

    1992

    12

    1993

    34

    1994

    46

    1995

    39

    1996

    36

    1997

    42

    1997–98

    39

    1998–99

    28

    1999–2000

    22

    2000–01

    16

    2001–02

    32

    Data as for 8 October 2002, figures are subject to revision as cases are dealt with by the police and by the courts or as further information becomes available.

    Detention and Training Orders
    Dr. Stoate
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances magistrates can impose a detention and training order on an offender aged 12 to 14 years who has been convicted of breaching an anti-social behaviour order. [150993]

    Paul Goggins
    A court sentencing an offender aged 12–14 for breach of an anti-social behaviour order can make a Detention and Training Order in the same circumstances as for other criminal offences attracting custody. That is, where:it decides that the effect of the breach either in itself or in combination with associated offences, is so serious that only a custodial sentence can be justified; or

    1257W
    the anti-social behaviour involves a violent or sexual offence and only a custodial sentence.

    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the changes in the costs of introduction of the detention and training orders. [151132]

    Paul Goggins
    We estimate the average cost of a Detention and Training Order to be £27,000. That is an average for all sentence lengths and all types of establishment (Young Offender Institutions, Secure Training Centres and Local Authority Secure Children's Homes). It includes both the custodial and the community parts of the Order.

    Drug Treatment and Testing Orders
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of drug treatment and testing orders. [150353]

    Paul Goggins
    The evidence shows that Drug Treatment and Testing Orders (DTTOs) do work and that the longer offenders remain in treatment, the more likely they are to reduce their levels of offending and drug misuse (National Treatment Outcome Research Study 2001). An evaluation of the 3 DTTO pilots found that, on average, offenders committed 75 per cent. fewer offences while on the order and reduced their spend on drugs by over 90 per cent.

    A two-year follow up reconviction study of offenders from the three DTTO pilot sites found that:
    There was a significant reduction in the average number of convictions per year in the two years following the order in all three pilot sites; and
    Those who had completed DTTOs had a reconviction rate of only 53 per cent. compared with 91 per cent. for revokees, and reduced their annual conviction rate to levels significantly below those of the previous five years.

    Eastern European Immigrants
    Bob Spink
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what research he has based his estimates of the likely levels of immigration from Eastern European countries after accession to the EU in May. [153096]

    Beverley Hughes
    The Home Office commissioned research by University College London to look at the impact of EU accession (published in 2003 and available on the Home Office website (RDS On-line Report 25/03). In this report the authors reviewed the literature on potential migration flows following enlargement, analysed the experience of previous enlargements and developed their own model to estimate net migration from the new member states to the UK. This research was peer reviewed by scientific experts in the field.

    The findings were broadly in line with previous research, in particular, reports by the European Commission in 2000 ("European Commission information note on free movement in the context of workers") and the former Department for Education and Employment in 1999 ("Assessment of possible migration pressure and its labour market impact following EU enlargement to Central and Eastern Europe").
    1258W

    Electronic Tagging
    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are on electronic tags, broken down by(a) sex, (b) offence, (c) length of sentence and (d) region. [149091]

    Paul Goggins
    [holding answer 26 January 2004]Figures for those on home detention curfew at the end of November 2003, having been released from prison are given in the following tables broken down by sex, offence, sentence length and region.

    Number on Home Detention Curfew, by offence, at end November 2003

    Total

    Male

    Female

    Violence against the person

    656

    617

    39

    Robbery

    343

    300

    43

    Burglary

    447

    419

    28

    Theft and handling

    381

    327

    54

    Fraud and forgery

    217

    173

    44

    Drugs offences

    695

    578

    117

    Other offences

    719

    673

    46

    Offence not recorded

    131

    126

    5

    Total

    3,589

    3,213

    376

    Number on Home Detention Curfew, by sentence length, at end November 2003

    Number

    Three to less than six months

    362

    Six to less than 12 months

    500

    12 to less than 18 months

    555

    18 months to less than two years.

    512

    Two years to less than four years

    1,660

    Total

    3,589

    Estimated number on Home Detention Curfew, by region, at end November 2003

    Number

    Northern

    1,146

    Southern

    574

    London and Eastern

    868

    Midlands and Wales

    1,001

    Total

    3,589

    The figures by region are estimates, and represent contractor regions.

    Mrs. Iris Robinson
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his conclusions are arising from trials involving electronic tagging of juvenile sex offenders. [150749]

    Paul Goggins
    There have been no trials of electronic tagging for juvenile sex offenders in England and Wales.

    Fines
    Mr. Frank Field
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) fines and (b) other financial penalties were imposed by the courts for criminal offences during 2000–01, broken down by police authority in England and Wales; and how many of these were paid fully and on time. [152186]
    1259W
    Paul Goggins
    The number of offenders ordered to pay a fine or compensation order or who have received a confiscation order (monetary) for all offences at all courts, England and Wales 2000–01, by Police Force Area is contained in the table.

    Details on the number of these financial penalties paid fully and on time, is not available centrally.

    Number of offenders sentenced to pay a fine, or compensation order or who have confiscation order (monetary) at all courts for all offences, by England and Wales 2000–011

    Police Force Area

    Fine

    Compensation order

    Confiscation order

    Avon and Somerset

    25,763

    2,467

    18

    Bedfordshire

    9,267

    659

    6

    Cambridgeshire

    5,652

    919

    8

    Cheshire

    20,387

    2,028

    8

    Cleveland

    12,397

    1,531

    4

    Cumbria

    9,318

    1,387

    10

    Derbyshire

    19,099

    1,733

    41

    Devon and Cornwall

    24,123

    2,641

    9

    Dorset

    10,026

    1,076

    11

    Durham

    8,385

    1,558

    8

    Essex

    32,515

    2,963

    5

    Gloucestershire

    10,699

    851

    7

    Greater Manchester

    83,566

    5,432

    91

    Hampshire

    32,869

    3,605

    19

    Hertfordshire

    16,095

    2,173

    4

    Humberside

    15,851

    1,703

    29

    Kent

    16,207

    2,489

    29

    Lancashire

    34,402

    3,765

    10

    Leicestershire

    20,066

    1,432

    29

    Lincolnshire

    14,103

    1,388

    9

    London, City of

    8,067

    214

    1

    Merseyside

    29,560

    1,206

    56

    Metropolitan Police

    140,011

    17,573

    263

    Norfolk

    9,341

    1,297

    5

    Northamptonshire

    9,949

    915

    16

    Northumbria

    34,817

    3,775

    15

    North Yorkshire

    9,230

    1,471

    8

    Nottinghamshire

    17,309

    2,266

    13

    South Yorkshire

    25,764

    2,400

    24

    Staffordshire

    11,547

    2,045

    4

    Suffolk

    10,050

    1,253

    5

    Surrey

    13,117

    1,423

    3

    Sussex

    21,438

    2,778

    30

    Thames Valley

    33,015

    3,217

    35

    Warwickshire

    12,682

    788

    11

    West Mercia

    18,860

    2,379

    18

    West Midlands

    54,163

    6,008

    60

    West Yorkshire

    50,347

    4,388

    13

    Wiltshire

    10,559

    1,319

    8

    Dyfed Powys

    8,921

    983

    2

    Gwent

    15,624

    1,392

    29

    North Wales

    12,555

    1,501

    9

    South Wales

    28,923

    2,121

    20

    England and Wales

    1,006,6

    104,512

    1,003

    1 These data are on the principal offence basis (but including primary and secondary schools).

    Mr. Frank Field
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fixed penalty notices were issued in the most recent period for which figures are available, broken down by police authority in England and Wales; what the total value of these penalty notices was; what proportion of these were paid in full and on time; and what proportion of those fined paid their penalty in full and on time. [152189]

    Ms Blears
    [holding answer 30 January 2004]Information on fixed penalty notices issued for road traffic offences by police force area can be found in the annual Home Office publication 'Offences relating to motor vehicles, England and Wales Supplementary 1260W
    tables'—Tables 20(a) to 20(c) refers. The latest issue covers 2001. Copies are available from the Library. The total value of fixed penalty notices issued is not collected centrally.

    Data are also collected centrally on the disposal, (ie. paid, fine registration certificate issued etc.) of fixed penalty notices issued for road traffic offences. However because of the time taken for the procedures for payment to be enforced the data are collected approximately nine months later than the period of issue. Tables 21(a) and 21(b) of the above 2001 publication details 2000 data by number and percentage of fixed penalty notices by result. Tables 20(a) to 20(c) of the 2000 publication cover that period. Information is not available on the number of fines paid in full and on time.

    Over 6,000 penalty notices for disorder were issued in the year-long pilots in four police force areas which started in mid-2002. A Home Office Research Findings covering the evaluation of the pilots will be published shortly.

    Highdown Prison
    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken to address the shortfall of officers at HM Prison Highdown in Surrey. [151154]

    Paul Goggins
    Local recruitment campaigns for Prison Officers at Highdown and surrounding prisons have been held. Eight new officers are in the process of initial training at Highdown and will become fully operational on 7 March. In the Kent, Surrey and Sussex area a further 18 potential recruits are undergoing final checks into their suitability for posts in the Prison Service, some of whom are expected to be posted to Highdown. A further recruitment exercise is scheduled to begin in March.

    Highdown is also currently operating a Contracted Supplementary Hours system which provides the equivalent of 14 additional officers.

    Home Detention Curfew
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has collated on the use of the satellite global positioning system for monitoring those on Home Detention Curfew programmes. [148897]

    Paul Goggins
    The Home Office is aware of two pieces of research conducted by the Florida Department of Corrections, Bureau of Research and Data Analysis: A Report on Community Control, Radio Frequency (RF) Monitoring and Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) Monitoring (October 2002) and A Controlled Study of the Effects of Electronic Monitoring and Officer Caseload on Outcomes for Offenders on Community Control (March 2003). Officials have also visited programmes in Florida and Texas that use satellite global positioning systems to monitor offenders. The Home Office is testing tracking equipment using satellite global positioning systems and plans to pilot the use of this technology to track offenders later this year. No decisions have been taken about the categories of offenders who will be subject to tracking in the pilots.
    1261W

    Identity Card
    John Barrett
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what safeguards will be put in place to ensure people who lose or have their identity cards stolen will be able to access basic services for which an identity card will be required. [152647]

    Beverley Hughes
    An identity card, although very helpful to public services as a reliable means of proving identity, would not become mandatory until a specific further Parliamentary decision on a move to compulsion. Where the identity card is used to access public services we will want to ensure that procedures are in place to help those whose card has been lost or stolen, especially in cases of emergency.

    John Barrett
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what lessons have been learned from countries with operational identity card schemes on combating identity card fraud; and if he will make a statement; [152679]

    (2) whether the operation of identity cards in Australia was examined in estimating the annual cost of the proposed UK identity card scheme; and if he will make a statement. [152646]

    Beverley Hughes
    Identity card schemes exist in all other EU countries with the exception of Denmark and Ireland.

    Home Office officials have had detailed discussions with colleagues involved in the operation of identity card schemes in Italy, Sweden and the Netherlands and comprehensive information has been supplied by each of the EU member states on the operation of their card schemes.

    From these discussions, it is clear that the keys to an effective card scheme are the security of the issuing process, the physical security of the document itself and consistent procedures for using the card. Lessons learned from other countries, including those such as

    Establishment

    January 2002

    February 2002

    March 2002

    April 2002

    May 2002

    June 2002

    July 2002

    August 2002

    Ashfield

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    Brinsford

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Brockhill

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Bullwood Hall

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Castington

    7

    3

    4

    1

    1

    4

    0

    1

    Eastwood Park

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Feltham

    2

    3

    2

    0

    2

    2

    3

    5

    Hindley

    0

    0

    0

    0

    4

    5

    1

    4

    Holloway

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Huntercombe

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Lanacaster Farms

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    New Hall

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    Onley

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Pare

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Stoke Heath

    2

    4

    2

    1

    1

    1

    3

    4

    Thorn Cross

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Warren Hill

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Werrington

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Wetherby

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1262W
    Australia, Canada and the USA that do not have identity cards, will help inform the delivery planning of the United Kingdom identity cards scheme.

    John Barrett
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects identity cards to become compulsory following the introduction of the proposed identity card scheme. [152681]

    Beverley Hughes
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend, the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on 26 January 2004,Official Report, column 212W.

    John Barrett
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment has been made of requiring electors to show a valid identity card in order to cast a vote at UK elections following the introduction of the proposed identity card scheme; and if he will make a statement. [152682]

    Beverley Hughes
    In Northern Ireland voters are already required to produce proof of their identity before they vote. The Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 introduced electoral identity cards in Northern Ireland as one of the four ways in which individuals can prove who they are when going to vote at an election in Northern Ireland.

    There are no plans to extend this by requiring electors throughout the United Kingdom to show a valid identity card in order to cast a vote. However, discussions are continuing between the Home Office and other Departments on how production of an identity card might be linked to services for which they are responsible in the future.

    Juvenile Prisoners
    Mr. Oaten
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times unfurnished cells have been used in each of the prisons holding juveniles in each month since 1 January 2002. [144359]

    Paul Goggins
    Date on the number of times juveniles have been placed in unfurnished cells in each of the juvenile establishments since l January 2002 is set out in the following tables.
    1263W

    Establishment

    September 2002

    October 2002

    November 2002

    December 2002

    January 2003

    February 2003

    March 2003

    April 2003

    Ashfield

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Brinsford

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Brockhill

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    Bullwood Hall

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    Castington

    0

    2

    4

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Eastwood Park

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Feltham

    3

    1

    3

    2

    0

    0

    3

    5

    Hindley

    3

    3

    1

    0

    1

    1

    0

    0

    Holloway

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Huntercombe

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Lanacaster Farms

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    New Hall

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Onley

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Pare

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Stoke Heath

    2

    5

    4

    0

    2

    0

    0

    1

    Thorn Cross

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Warren Hill

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Werrington

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Wetherby

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Establishment

    May 2003

    June 2003

    July 2003

    August 2003

    September 2003

    October 2003

    November 2003

    Total

    Ashfield

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    2

    Brinsford

    0

    0

    1

    1

    3

    0

    0

    6

    Brockhill

    2

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    3

    Bullwood Hall

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    0

    3

    Castington

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    27

    Eastwood Park

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Feltham

    6

    4

    1

    1

    4

    3

    5

    60

    Hindley

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    21

    Holloway

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Huntercombe

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Lanacaster Farms

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    New Hall

    0

    0

    1

    0

    1

    0

    1

    4

    Onley

    0

    0

    0

    0

    3

    2

    1

    8

    Pare

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Stoke Heath

    2

    1

    2

    1

    1

    0

    1

    40

    Thorn Cross

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Warren Hill

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Werrington

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Wetherby

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Mentally Disordered Offenders
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the mentally disordered offenders listed in the 2003 Statistics published by the Home Office on 27 November 2003 were deaf; and what proportion were from a black and ethnic minority background. [147694]

    Paul Goggins
    The requested information is not held centrally and is therefore not available. Mechanisms have been put in place to collect information on the ethnicity of restricted patients. This information will be published as soon as is practically possible.

    Motoring Offences (Fine Defaulters)
    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people serving custodial sentences for motoring offences are doing so because of defaulting on fines. [151155]

    Paul Goggins
    At the end of November 2003, there were six people in prison who had defaulted on the payment of a fine for motoring offences.
    1264W

    National Offender Management Service
    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the continuing responsibilities will be of(a) the National Probation Service and (b) the National Probation Directorate within the structures of the National Offender Management Service. [148000]

    Paul Goggins
    [holding answer 19 January 2004]The future responsibilities of the National Probation Service and the National Probation Directorate have yet to be finalised. We are committed to maintaining local involvement in the delivery of correctional services. We do not yet have a final view on how best this can be achieved within the new structure and this is a specific issue on which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has asked for views.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the relationship will be between local probation areas, regional offender managers, national offender managers and the chief executive within the arrangements of the National Offender Management Service. [148001]
    1265W
    Paul Goggins
    [holding answer 19 January 2004]The Chief Executive of National Offender Management Service (NOMS) will lead the new service. The National Offender Manager will report directly to the Chief Executive and will be responsible for reducing re-offending and managing the budget for offender services. The Regional Offender Managers will report to the National Offender Manager and will have responsibility for end-to-end management of offenders in the nine English regions and Wales.

    The relationship between local probation areas and NOMS have yet to be finalised. We are committed to maintaining local involvement in the delivery of correctional services. We do not yet have a final view on how best this can be achieved within the new structure and this is a specific issue on which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has asked for views.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the role of offender managers at the area level will be within the structure of the National Offender Management Service. [148002]

    Paul Goggins
    [holding answer 19 January 2004]The regional offender manager's role will be to provide dedicated end-to-end management of offenders regardless of whether they have received a custodial or community sentence or indeed a combination of the two. The offender manager will be able to provide interventions appropriate to the offender, purchasing these from the public, private, not for profit and voluntary sectors.

    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many additional staff will be employed in the National Offender Management Service to administer the new service at(a) national and (b) regional level. [150716]

    Paul Goggins
    The structure of the National Offender Management Service is yet to be finalised. It is too early to say how many staff will be needed in the new structure at either national or regional level.

    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the budget is for establishing the National Offender Management Service during(a) the current year and (b) each of the next three financial years. [150717]

    Paul Goggins
    The cost of establishing the National Offender Management service will be met from within existing Home Office provision in 2003–04 and 2004–05. Funding for 2005–06 onwards will be agreed as part of the current spending review.

    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the role will be of offender managers at area level under the new National Offender Management Service structure. [150718]

    Paul Goggins
    The regional offender manager's role will be to provide dedicated end-to-end management of offenders regardless of whether they have received a custodial or community sentence or indeed a combination of the two. The offender manager will be able to provide interventions appropriate to the offender, purchasing these from the public, private, not for profit and voluntary sectors.
    1266W
    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the National Probation Service and its Directorate will continue to function under the new arrangements for the National Offender Management Service. [150719]

    Paul Goggins
    For the time being the National Probation Service and its Directorate will continue to function as they are at the moment. However, as the new organisation develops, offender managers from the National Offender Management Service will assume end-to-end responsibility for offenders and will contract with providers of services from within their areas regardless of whether the service is from the public, private or voluntary sector. We do not as yet have a finalised view as to the future of the 42 boards within this framework and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has therefore specifically sought the views of key stakeholders.

    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the relationship will be between the(a) local areas, (b) regional offender managers, (c) national offender managers and (d) the Chief Executive of the National Offender Management Service. [150720]

    Paul Goggins
    The Chief Executive of the National Offenders Management Service (NOMS), Martin Narey, will lead the new service. The National Offender Manager will report directly to the Chief Executive and will be responsible for reducing re-offending and managing the budget for offender services. The Regional Offender Managers will report to the National Offender Manager and will have responsibility for end-to-end management of offenders in the nine English regions and Wales.

    The relationship between local probation areas and NOMS have yet to be finalised. We are committed to maintaining local involvement in the delivery of correctional services. We do not yet have a final view on how best this can be achieved within the new structure and this is a specific issue on which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has asked for views.

    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether local probation areas will become an integral arm of the National Offender Management Service with substantial day to day operational freedom. [150721]

    Paul Goggins
    Individual probation areas will continue to function as they are for the moment. However, as the new organisation develops, offender managers from the National Offender Management Service will assume end-to-end responsibility for offenders and will contract with providers of services from within the areas regardless of whether the service is from the public, private or voluntary sector. We do not as yet have a finalised view as to the future of the 42 boards within this framework and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has therefore specifically sought the views of key stakeholders.

    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who the employer will be of probation and prison staff under the National Offender Management Service. [150722]
    1267W
    Paul Goggins
    For most staff in prisons and probation the changes outlined in "Reducing Crime—Changing Lives" are unlikely to have an immediate impact. They will continue to be employed by the probation boards and prison service. In time the relationships will change but those changes have yet to be finalised and will be subject to the usual consultation arrangements with staff and unions.

    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the National Offender Management Service will set up consultation committees with magistrates within the new structure for NOMS; what the line of accountability will be for prison and probation officers; whether probation areas will continue to have a role within multi-agency public protection panels; whether inter-agency work will be the subject of competitive tendering; and whether the supervision and potential recall of ex-prisoners will be opened up to competition. [150759]

    Paul Goggins
    The structure of the National Offender Management Service is yet to be finalised. As part of the implementation of the Reducing Crime—Changing Lives reforms the implementation team will consider the introduction of consultative committees and develop the details of contestability within the National Offender Management Service.

    For most staff in prisons and probation the reforms are unlikely to have an immediate impact. They will continue to be employed by the probation boards and prison service. In time the relationships will change but those changes have yet to be finalised and will be subject to the usual consultation arrangements with staff and unions.

    Individual probation areas will continue to function as they are at the moment. However, as the new organisation develops, offender managers from the National Offender Management Service will assume end-to-end responsibility for offenders and will contract with providers of services from within their areas regardless of whether the service is from the public, private or voluntary sector. Inter-agency work to protect the public and address rehabilitation will remain a crucial element of the work of the National Offender Management Service.

    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure the burden of administration for front line staff of the National Offender Management Service does not increase. [151193]

    Paul Goggins
    [holding answer 29 January 2004]The Government is committed to the reduction of unnecessary bureaucracy, particularly in regard to demands on front line staff. The National Offender Management Service implementation team will seek to reduce the administrative demands on front line staff wherever possible.

    Mr. Oaten
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff are expected to be employed by the National Offender Management Service(a) in headquarters and (b) in the regional offices. [151423]
    1268W
    Paul Goggins
    The structure of the National Offender Management Service is yet to be finalised.

    Mr. Oaten
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the arrangements for collective bargaining will be within the structure of the National Offenders Management Service. [147626]

    Paul Goggins
    The structure of the National Offender Management Service is yet to be finalised. Once this is done, the Department will put in place appropriate mechanisms to allow collective bargaining to take place.

    Mr. Oaten
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether individual probation areas will continue to function and have day-to-day operational freedom within the structure of the National Offenders Management Service. [147628]

    Paul Goggins
    For the time being individual probation areas will continue to function as they are at the moment. However, as the new organisation develops, offender managers from the National Offender Management Service will assume end-to-end responsibility for offenders and will contract with providers of services from within their areas regardless of whether the service is from the public, private or voluntary sector. We do not as yet have a finalised view as to the future of the 42 boards within this framework and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has therefore specifically sought the views of key stakeholders.

    Mr. Oaten
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the lines of accountability of probation staff will differ under the structure of the National Offenders Management Service. [147629]

    Paul Goggins
    For most staff in prisons and probation the changes outlined in "Reducing Crime—Changing Lives" are unlikely to have an immediate impact. They will continue to be employed by the probation boards and Prison Service. In time the relationships will change, but those changes have yet to be finalised and will be subject to the usual consultation arrangements with staff and unions.

    Mr. Oaten
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what role probation areas will continue to have within Multi-agency public protection panels within the National Offenders Management Service structure; and what steps will be taken to ensure that the work is adequately funded. [147630]

    Paul Goggins
    For the time being individual probation areas will continue to function as they are at the moment. However, as the new organisation develops, offender managers from the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) will assume end-to-end responsibility for offenders, including a continuing role within Multi-agency Public Protection Panels. The future of the Probation Boards within NOMS is an issue on which we are seeking the views of key stakeholders.

    Mr. Oaten
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether inter-agency public protection work within the structure of the National Offenders Management Service will be the subject of competitive tendering in future. [147631]
    1269W
    Paul Goggins
    The details of contestability within correctional services will be developed as part of the "Reducing Crime—Changing Lives" reforms. Inter-agency work to protect the public and encourage rehabilitation will remain a crucial element of the work of the National Offender Management Service.

    John McDonnell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who will be responsible for the day-to-day management of the 42 probation areas under the National Offenders Management Service arrangements. [147661]

    Paul Goggins
    Although all probation staff will come within the ambit of the new National Offenders Management Service (NOMS), they will for the time being continue to be employed by the probation boards. We are committed to ensuring local delivery of correctional services but do not yet have a firm view on how this can be best achieved within the new single service. The future of the 42 probation boards is therefore a specific issue on which my right hon. friend the Home Secretary has asked for views.

    Mr. Gerrard
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether consultative committees with local magistrates will be introduced within the structure of the National Offenders Management Service. [147720]

    Paul Goggins
    The introduction of consultative committees within the structure of the National Offender Management Service will be considered by the implementation team as part of the implementation of the "Reducing Crime—Changing Lives" reforms.

    Mr. Gerrard
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there will be a single employer under existing National Negotiating Committee arrangements for the purposes of collective bargaining within the structure of the National Offenders Management Service. [147722]

    Paul Goggins
    The structure of the National Offender Management Service is yet to be finalised. Once this is done, the Department will put in place appropriate mechanisms to allow collective bargaining to take place.

    Mrs. Brooke
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the National Offenders Management Service will work on a regional level closely with complementary services, including the police. [147765]

    Paul Goggins
    [holding answer 19 January 2004]Yes. As the report "Reducing Crime—Changing Lives" makes clear, we believe the tasks of integrating the management of offenders whilst in custody or under supervision in the community is best managed at regional level where effective links can be forged and joint strategies developed with complementary services including police, health, education and employment. There will be 10 regional offender managers responsible for this in the nine English regions and Wales.

    Open Prisons
    Mr. McLoughlin
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what targets have been set for the transfer of prisoners from closed prisons to open prisons; and how many(a) Category A prisoners,
    1270W
    (b) Category B prisoners and (c) Category C prisoners were reclassified as Category D prisoners in (i) 2003 and (ii) 2002. [148878]

    Paul Goggins
    There are no binding targets for the transfer of prisoners from closed prisons to open prisons. There are agreed delivery levels for the transfer of prisoners from Category C conditions to open conditions, which are monitored by Area Managers but not enforced. Governors and Area Managers work to ensure that all prisoners assessed as suitable for open conditions are moved there as soon as possible. Any move to open conditions is subject to the prisoner being approved to do so through a risk assessment.

    The total number of prisoners in prisons in England and Wales at 30 June 2002 and 30 June 2003 who had been reclassified to a Category D classification during the previous 12 months is shown in the table.

    (i) 30 June 2003

    (ii) 30 June 2002

    Total number of prisoners reclassified as Category D1

    2,900

    2,300

    1All category D prisoners are re-categorised from category C irrespective of their original classification on entry to prison.

    Parole Board
    Mr. Carmichael
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what steps his Department is taking to improve communication links between the Parole Board of England and Wales and external bodies; what plans he has to enable the Board to have telephone listings independently of the Prison Service; and what plans there are to provide resources to the organisation to enable it to act as an autonomous body [152000]

    Paul Goggins
    The Parole Board for England and Wales is an independent body and is responsible for developing good links with other agencies within the Criminal Justice System.

    The Parole Board only very recently informed officials in the sponsoring unit of the difficulties it was experiencing with the telecommunications service, and that its contact numbers are not independently listed from those of the Prison Service. Now that the sponsoring unit is aware of the problem, it will do all it can to assist the Board with this matter.

    The Parole Board already has resources available to it, given as grant-in-aid payments, in order that it can carry out its functions competently and in its capacity as an independent body. The grant-in-aid agreed for Board for 2003–04 was £4.76 million compared with £3.73 million for 2002–03, which represents a 28 per cent. increase.

    Police Statistics (Wales)
    Mr. Wiggin
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) police officers, (b) special constables and (c) community support officers there were in Wales broken down by (i) police force, (ii) constituency and (iii) local authority area for each year since 1997. [151735]
    1271W
    Ms Blears
    The tables give the number of police officers and special constables from 1997 to 2003 for each police force area in Wales. Data on Community Support Officers and for territorial areas within police forces were collected for the first time in 2003 by the Research Development and Statistics Directorate.

    March 1997

    March 1998

    March 1999

    March 2000

    March 2001

    March 2002

    March 20032

    Police Officer Strength1

    Dyfed-Powys

    1,005

    1,002

    1,026

    1,040

    1,055

    1,132

    1,149

    Gwent

    1,243

    1,233

    1,247

    1,264

    1,274

    1,333

    1,341

    North Wales

    1,369

    1,396

    1,391

    1,403

    1,444

    1,506

    1,539

    South Wales

    2,976

    2,986

    2,981

    2,926

    3,154

    3,222

    3,239

    Total

    6,592

    6,617

    6,646

    6,632

    6,927

    7,194

    7,268

    Special Constables1

    Dyfed-Powys

    283

    254

    237

    202

    191

    157

    152

    Gwent

    157

    119

    113

    119

    137

    142

    130

    North Wales

    341

    358

    400

    247

    207

    125

    133

    South Wales

    361

    366

    338

    267

    254

    277

    173

    Total

    1,142

    1,097

    1,088

    835

    789

    701

    588

    Community Support Officers1

    Dyfed-Powys

    0

    Gwent

    30

    North Wales

    0

    South Wales

    0

    1Full time equivalents

    2 Comparable strength (previously published figures exclude officers on career breaks and maternity leave

    Police Force Area

    Basic Command Units

    March 2002 Police officer strength

    March 2003 Police officer strength

    Dyfed-Powys

    Carmarthenshire

    334

    331

    Dyfed-Powys

    Ceredigion

    151

    153

    Dyfed-Powys

    Pembrokeshire

    234

    234

    Dyfed-Powys

    Powys

    254

    274

    Gwent

    Blaenau Gwent

    279

    131

    Gwent

    Caerphilly

    283

    321

    Gwent

    Newport Torfaen and

    295

    282

    Gwent

    Monmouthshire

    223

    282

    North Wales

    Central

    339

    404

    North Wales

    Eastern

    397

    437

    North Wales

    Western

    345

    380

    South Wales

    Bridgend

    235

    254

    South Wales

    Cardiff

    651

    805

    South Wales

    Merthyr Tydfil

    142

    144

    South Wales

    Neath and Port Talbot

    241

    232

    South Wales

    Rhondda Cynon Taff

    363

    381

    South Wales

    Swansea

    464

    500

    South Wales

    Vale of Glamorgan

    195

    220

    Prisons
    Mr. Oaten
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many seizures of alcohol were made in London prisons in the last 12 months. [151424]

    Paul Goggins
    The information requested cannot be obtained except at disproportionate cost.

    Mr. Oaten
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to upgrade existing prison cells over the next five years. [151690]

    Paul Goggins
    The Prison Service is currently working to a three year programme of ongoing refurbishment of prison places. At any one time approximately 2,000 places are out of use on account of building 1272W
    Figures are not available by constituency or local authority area but are available by police force basic command unit (BCU). A table of BCUs in Wales giving police strength for 2002 (collected by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary) and 2003 is included.
    refurbishment works. There are also programmes to provide privacy screens in cells that may be used for double occupancy.

    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list fires started by prisoners in 2003; at which prisons the incidents took place; and what the cost was in each case. [151152]

    Paul Goggins
    In 2003 there were 980 fires in prisons. The possible cause of 674 (69 per cent.) of these was recorded as malicious ignition.

    While many of the fires started by prisoners are dealt with quickly, resulting in little damage, occasionally larger fires do occur and a very small number of these result in serious damage to cells.

    The following table shows all establishments and indicates for each, the number of fires that occurred in 2003 for which malicious ignition was recorded as the `possible cause'.

    Figures for the cost in each case is not available.

    Number of fires in 2003 where the 'possible cause' has been recorded as malicious ignition

    Askham grange

    1

    Acklington

    0

    Albany

    4

    Altcourse

    3

    Ashfield

    17

    Ashwell

    2

    Aylesbury

    3

    Bedford

    2

    Belmarsh

    4

    Birmingham

    6

    1273W

    Number of fires in 2003 where the 'possible cause' has been recorded as malicious ignition

    Blakenhurst

    18

    Blantyre House

    1

    Blundeston

    4

    Brinsford

    5

    Bristol

    8

    Brixton

    15

    Brockhill

    12

    Buckley Hall

    5

    Bullingdon

    4

    Bullwood Hall

    3

    Camphill

    3

    Canterbury

    0

    Cardiff

    1

    Castington

    7

    Channings Wood

    3

    Chelmsford

    5

    Coldingly

    0

    Cookham Wood

    9

    Dartmoor

    3

    Deerbolt

    3

    Doncaster

    11

    Dorchester

    0

    Dovegate

    12

    Dover

    1

    Downview

    1

    Drake Hall

    1

    Durham

    8

    East Sutton Park

    6

    Eastwood Park

    0

    Elmley

    3

    Erlestoke

    0

    Everthorpe

    0

    Exeter

    2

    Featherstone

    2

    Feltham

    13

    Ford

    0

    Forest Bank

    17

    Foston Hall

    1

    Frankland

    0

    Full Sutton

    3

    Garth

    8

    Gartree

    0

    Glen Parva

    4

    Gloucester

    6

    Grendon/Springhill

    0

    Guys Marsh

    1

    Haslar

    2

    Hatfield

    1

    Haverigg

    2

    Hewell Grange

    0

    Highdown

    6

    Highpoint

    11

    Hindley

    23

    Hollesley Bay

    0

    Holloway

    11

    Holme House

    1

    Hull

    7

    Huntercombe

    9

    Kingston

    1

    Kirkham

    1

    Kirklevington Grange

    0

    Lancaster

    1

    Lancaster Farms

    2

    Latchmere House

    0

    Leeds

    6

    Leicester

    8

    Lewes

    8

    Leyhill

    1

    Lincoln

    5

    Lindholme

    7

    Littlehey

    4

    Liverpool

    13

    1274W

    Number of fires in 2003 where the 'possible cause' has been recorded as malicious ignition

    Long Lartin

    2

    Low Newton

    11

    Lowdham Grange

    0

    Maidstone

    3

    Manchester

    11

    Moorland

    4

    Morton Hall

    0

    New Hall

    9

    North Sea Camp

    2

    Northallerton

    3

    Norwich

    22

    Nottingham

    11

    Onley

    6

    Pare

    29

    Parkhurst

    7

    Pentonville

    15

    Portland

    1

    Preston

    8

    Ranby

    5

    Reading

    0

    Risley

    8

    Rochester

    2

    Ryehill

    2

    Send

    3

    Shepton Mallet

    2

    Shrewsbury

    1

    Stafford

    2

    Standford hill

    1

    Stocken

    1

    Stoke Heath

    6

    Styal

    10

    Sudbury

    0

    Swaleside

    20

    Swansea

    1

    Swinfen Hall

    0

    The Verne

    1

    The Mount

    1

    Thorn Cross

    1

    Usk/Prescoed

    0

    Wakefield

    2

    Wandsworth

    21

    Warren Hill

    0

    Wayland

    6

    Wealstun

    5

    Weare

    0

    Wellingborough

    3

    Werrington

    0

    Wetherby

    10

    Whatton

    0

    Whitemoor

    4

    Wincester

    7

    Wolds

    6

    Woodhill

    2

    Wormwood Scrubs

    14

    Wymott

    2

    Total

    674

    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to change the current retirement age of 65 years for serving prison officers. [152710]

    Paul Goggins
    The current maximum retirement age for serving prison officers is 60 years. A small number of prison officers are retained beyond 60 for exceptional operational reasons.
    1275W
    No decision has been made to extend the retirement age for prison officers, although all options are currently being considered.

    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison officers failed their annual control and restraint test in the past 12 months; and what their ages were. [152711]

    Paul Goggins
    There is no annual control and restraint test in the Prison Service. Prison establishments are required to maintain an appropriate level of officers trained at basic level control and restraint, and those officers selected to fulfil this requirement all undertake initial and refresher training courses. However, these courses do not include a test.

    Officers who deal with incidents of concerted indiscipline attend an advanced control and restraint training course. Again, officers are not formally tested at the end of this training. However, to gain admission to the course, an officer must be identified by his or her line manager as having an aptitude for the role; and is required to undertake a fitness test. From 1 January to 31 December 2003, a total of 4,353 officers undertook this fitness test, including officers from private prisons. The overall pass rate was 98.6 per cent, with 62 officers, aged between 18 and 65, failing. Their age distribution was as follows:

    Age

    Number of advanced for advanced C and R training who failed the fitness test

    18–25

    5

    26–34

    12

    35–44

    35

    45–54

    8

    55–65

    2

    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he intends to fund the prison service in the next(a) five and (b) 10 years. [150181]

    Paul Goggins
    The budget plans for the years 2003–04 to 2005–06 are set out in the table. These figures are published in tables 2 and 3 of Section 6 of the Home Office Annual Departmental Report 2003. Both in-year and future year budgets are subject to review and amendment.

    Establishment

    A 1999

    B 1999

    A 2000

    B 2000

    A 2001

    B 2001

    A 2002

    B 2002

    A 2003

    B 2003

    Acklington

    1

    7

    0

    5

    0

    1

    0

    2

    1

    3

    Albany

    0

    0

    0

    2

    1

    2

    0

    2

    0

    3

    Altcourse

    3

    16

    2

    35

    3

    46

    0

    45

    3

    43

    Ashfield

    0

    6

    3

    79

    2

    75

    4

    123

    2

    62

    Ashwell

    0

    3

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    1

    Askham Grange

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Aylesbury

    8

    71

    1

    26

    4

    31

    2

    11

    2

    15

    Bedford

    1

    2

    1

    6

    2

    11

    4

    16

    2

    12

    Belmarsh

    4

    49

    2

    63

    8

    107

    7

    74

    0

    52

    Birmingham

    5

    48

    1

    37

    2

    50

    1

    53

    2

    58

    Blakenhurst

    3

    33

    6

    40

    1

    21

    0

    10

    5

    22

    Blantyre House

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Blundeston

    0

    3

    0

    2

    0

    5

    1

    2

    0

    2

    Brinsford

    1

    24

    0

    38

    0

    31

    1

    24

    0

    31

    Bristol

    2

    24

    1

    18

    1

    27

    2

    48

    2

    22

    Brixton

    3

    34

    2

    37

    5

    31

    4

    70

    4

    46

    Brockhill

    0

    9

    0

    10

    0

    16

    1

    12

    1

    5

    Buckley Hall

    0

    6

    0

    8

    0

    8

    0

    11

    1

    36

    1276W

    Table: Budget Plans for the Prison Service 2003–06

    £ millions

    Financial year

    Resource budget plans

    Capital budget plans

    2003–04

    2,331.462

    294.796

    2004–05

    2,403.303

    268.730

    2005–06

    2,520.342

    166.730

    The budgets for years 2006–07 to 2008–09 and beyond are yet to be finalised.

    Mr. Oaten
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff are employed in the(a) Prison Service headquarters and (b) National Probation Directorate headquarters. [151422]

    Paul Goggins
    At the beginning of November 2003 there were 2,403 (full-time equivalent) staff employed at Her Majesty's Prison Service Headquarters (including operational area offices). Of these, 1,330 were employed in central London offices.

    In December 2003, the National Probation Directorate employed 445 staff.

    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list attacks on(a) prison officers and (b) probation officers in each of the last five years, broken down by (i) prison and (ii) probation service area. [151153]

    Paul Goggins
    Information regarding assaults on probation officers is not collected centrally, for the previous or the new probation areas, and cannot be obtained except at disproportionate cost. Information on the numbers of assaults on prison officers reported to Prison Service headquarters by prisons is given in the table below, which distinguishes between serious and minor assaults. Serious assaults are shown in column A for each prison and each year with minor assaults being shown in column B. Serious assaults are those that result in detention in outside hospital as an inpatient, medical treatment for concussion or internal injury, fractures, scalds and burns, stabbing, crushing, extensive or multiple bruising, black eye, broken nose, lost or broken tooth, cuts requiring suturing, bites, temporary or permanent blindness or sexual assault. Minor assaults may involve no injury.
    1277W

    Establishment

    A 1999

    B 1999

    A 2000

    B 2000

    A 2001

    B 2001

    A 2002

    B 2002

    A 2003

    B 2003

    Bullingdon

    2

    32

    2

    18

    2

    16

    1

    23

    4

    22

    Bullwood Hall

    0

    3

    0

    2

    0

    1

    0

    1

    0

    0

    Camp Hill

    2

    4

    3

    7

    1

    3

    4

    6

    5

    10

    Canterbury

    1

    0

    0

    1

    0

    3

    0

    3

    1

    6

    Cardiff

    0

    5

    0

    5

    0

    17

    0

    14

    0

    11

    Castington

    1

    51

    5

    48

    0

    35

    1

    52

    2

    47

    Channings Wood

    0

    1

    0

    0

    1

    4

    0

    3

    0

    4

    Chelmsford

    0

    9

    6

    34

    3

    24

    3

    22

    2

    14

    Coldingley

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Cookham Wood

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    2

    0

    14

    Dartmoor

    0

    21

    0

    22

    2

    30

    2

    10

    0

    8

    Deerbolt

    0

    10

    0

    8

    1

    11

    2

    8

    0

    5

    Doncaster

    0

    42

    0

    15

    0

    29

    2

    30

    0

    25

    Dorchester

    0

    3

    0

    2

    0

    1

    0

    1

    0

    4

    Dovegate

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    7

    1

    24

    5

    39

    Dover

    3

    17

    1

    14

    0

    7

    0

    0

    5

    7

    Down view

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    1

    10

    1

    6

    Drake Hall

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    Durham

    2

    6

    3

    14

    2

    29

    2

    22

    2

    29

    East Sutton Park

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Eastwood Park

    1

    2

    0

    5

    0

    6

    0

    5

    0

    11

    Edmunds Hill

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    9

    Elmley

    0

    11

    0

    15

    1

    19

    2

    23

    3

    25

    Erlestoke

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Everthorpe

    0

    4

    2

    2

    0

    0

    0

    2

    1

    2

    Exeter

    1

    4

    0

    2

    2

    11

    1

    12

    2

    10

    Featherstone

    0

    6

    0

    8

    1

    8

    2

    16

    1

    7

    Feltham

    4

    43

    3

    28

    3

    97

    5

    82

    7

    101

    Ford

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    1

    0

    1

    0

    3

    Forest Bank

    0

    0

    1

    37

    2

    41

    2

    37

    2

    62

    Foston Hall

    1

    3

    0

    1

    0

    3

    1

    28

    0

    14

    Frankland

    0

    11

    1

    7

    1

    5

    1

    9

    0

    4

    Full Sutton

    2

    4

    0

    2

    2

    10

    1

    7

    2

    11

    Garth

    0

    5

    1

    6

    1

    2

    1

    8

    0

    10

    Gartree

    0

    2

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Glen Parva

    1

    22

    1

    23

    1

    25

    3

    40

    1

    27

    Gloucester

    3

    17

    1

    13

    2

    8

    3

    10

    0

    13

    Grendon

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Guys Marsh

    1

    3

    0

    9

    1

    11

    0

    1

    3

    6

    Haslar

    0

    0

    0

    3

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Hatfield

    0

    1

    0

    1

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Haverigg

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    1

    0

    2

    3

    5

    Hewell Grange

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Highdown

    1

    63

    3

    44

    4

    47

    1

    58

    2

    44

    Highpoint South

    3

    11

    1

    8

    1

    32

    4

    44

    3

    19

    Hindley

    1

    11

    1

    6

    0

    4

    0

    25

    0

    23

    Hollesley Bay

    1

    16

    5

    14

    4

    22

    0

    18

    0

    4

    Holloway

    13

    85

    6

    155

    5

    86

    1

    77

    4

    86

    Holme House

    1

    8

    1

    9

    0

    15

    1

    13

    1

    20

    Hull

    2

    19

    1

    9

    3

    12

    4

    13

    2

    27

    Huntercombe

    1

    10

    3

    15

    1

    8

    0

    15

    1

    18

    Kingston

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    0

    1

    Kirkham

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    1

    0

    0

    Kirklevington

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Lancaster Castle

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    1

    0

    0

    Lancaster Farms

    1

    22

    2

    16

    1

    18

    4

    17

    3

    11

    Latchmere House

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Leeds

    0

    57

    0

    31

    2

    76

    4

    56

    3

    111

    Leicester

    0

    11

    1

    17

    0

    15

    1

    14

    0

    14

    Lewes

    2

    9

    0

    12

    1

    19

    1

    10

    1

    32

    Leyhill

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Lincoln

    1

    5

    1

    6

    4

    16

    0

    20

    1

    14

    Lindholme

    0

    1

    0

    1

    1

    3

    1

    5

    2

    29

    Littlehey

    1

    13

    0

    21

    1

    8

    2

    5

    3

    8

    Liverpool

    1

    28

    2

    20

    1

    24

    2

    36

    1

    44

    Long Lartin

    0

    2

    1

    4

    3

    4

    1

    7

    2

    5

    Lowdham grange

    2

    17

    1

    8

    0

    3

    0

    4

    0

    3

    Low Newton

    0

    5

    1

    16

    2

    25

    0

    27

    2

    16

    Maidstone

    0

    1

    0

    1

    1

    2

    0

    2

    1

    5

    Manchester

    2

    24

    2

    37

    0

    33

    0

    53

    3

    56

    Moorland

    1

    26

    3

    14

    1

    20

    3

    20

    3

    19

    Morton Hall

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    5

    0

    4

    0

    1

    New Hall

    1

    5

    0

    9

    1

    30

    0

    24

    0

    21

    1278W 1279W

    Establishment

    A 1999

    B 1999

    A 2000

    B 2000

    A 2001

    B 2001

    A 2002

    B 2002

    A 2003

    B 2003

    Northallerton

    0

    6

    1

    8

    0

    4

    0

    6

    0

    11

    North Sea Camp

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    2

    1

    1

    0

    2

    Norwich

    3

    24

    5

    21

    4

    21

    2

    23

    3

    23

    Nottingham

    0

    12

    1

    21

    1

    16

    0

    12

    0

    15

    Onley

    3

    54

    0

    38

    3

    60

    12

    61

    7

    81

    Pare

    5

    17

    0

    12

    0

    15

    1

    26

    2

    54

    Parkhurst

    4

    7

    1

    7

    4

    18

    6

    8

    2

    17

    Pentonville

    4

    78

    0

    56

    2

    99

    3

    102

    8

    86

    Portland

    3

    6

    3

    29

    3

    13

    2

    21

    1

    14

    Preston

    3

    8

    0

    7

    2

    7

    1

    10

    3

    9

    Ranby

    0

    3

    1

    3

    0

    1

    4

    7

    1

    7

    Reading

    0

    1

    1

    0

    0

    4

    0

    6

    1

    7

    Risley

    3

    16

    0

    1

    0

    1

    1

    14

    1

    17

    Rochester

    3

    9

    5

    17

    3

    19

    1

    5

    1

    14

    Rye Hill

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    18

    1

    17

    3

    19

    Send

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    2

    1

    1

    1

    4

    Shepton Mallet

    1

    2

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    0

    1

    Shrewsbury

    0

    5

    0

    4

    0

    3

    0

    3

    0

    11

    Stafford

    3

    13

    3

    9

    0

    6

    1

    8

    3

    8

    Standford Hill

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Stocken

    0

    2

    1

    6

    1

    4

    0

    10

    0

    9

    Stoke Heath

    1

    20

    1

    52

    1

    62

    0

    47

    7

    16

    Styal

    0

    12

    1

    6

    0

    17

    0

    4

    1

    6

    Sudbury

    0

    0

    0

    2

    0

    2

    0

    0

    0

    2

    Swaleside

    3

    14

    3

    19

    3

    27

    3

    28

    5

    15

    Swansea

    1

    5

    1

    1

    0

    1

    0

    5

    1

    5

    Swinfen Hall

    1

    12

    0

    3

    3

    12

    0

    7

    1

    8

    The Mount

    0

    2

    0

    2

    1

    4

    0

    5

    1

    13

    The Verne

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    1

    0

    1

    The Weare

    0

    7

    2

    6

    0

    2

    0

    9

    2

    10

    Thorn Cross

    0

    4

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    1

    3

    Usk

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Wakefield

    2

    12

    1

    6

    1

    8

    0

    7

    0

    7

    Wandsworth

    4

    90

    2

    49

    3

    54

    3

    78

    4

    66

    Warren Hill

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Wayland

    0

    4

    0

    4

    0

    4

    0

    7

    1

    11

    Wealstun

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    0

    0

    0

    2

    Wellingborough

    0

    2

    0

    2

    1

    1

    0

    1

    0

    1

    Werrington

    0

    1

    1

    5

    0

    8

    0

    5

    1

    20

    Wetherby

    1

    7

    2

    16

    1

    20

    2

    8

    0

    11

    Whatton

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    1

    Whitemoor

    0

    8

    1

    10

    2

    34

    3

    22

    1

    14

    Winchester

    1

    5

    2

    5

    1

    4

    2

    11

    0

    12

    Wolds

    1

    20

    4

    27

    2

    10

    0

    13

    1

    7

    Woodhill

    2

    22

    0

    13

    0

    9

    0

    16

    1

    29

    Wormwood Scrubs

    1

    26

    1

    21

    1

    38

    2

    54

    10

    35

    Wymott

    0

    7

    0

    3

    0

    3

    0

    0

    0

    1

    Total

    145

    1671

    128

    1728

    141

    2100

    151

    2262

    191

    2320

    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are in place to ease the problem of prison overcrowding. [148891]

    Paul Goggins
    Funding has been provided for around 3,000 additional public sector prison places to be built at existing prisons by 2006. Two new private sector prisons providing 1,290 places are also due to be opened at Ashford (near Heathrow) and Peterborough in June 2004 and March 2005 respectively. This will increase the total useable capacity of the prison estate to around 78,700 by 2006.

    On the 6 January a radical reform of the management of offenders was announced with the publication of the document 'Reducing Crime-Changing Lives'. The overriding purpose of the reforms is to improve the management of offenders and reduce re-offending. Offenders for whom prison is the right penalty will continue to be sent to prison. But there are many offenders for whom tough non-custodial penalties will
    1280W
    be more appropriate. Our proposals will provide sentencers with a full range of penalties and advice on what is most likely to be effective in reducing re-offending in particular circumstances.

    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the connection between prison and homelessness; and what steps he is taking to ensure that prisoners have help finding accommodation on their release. [148894]

    Paul Goggins
    The Prison Service undertook a large-scale survey in March and April 2003 of sentenced prisoners nearing release. 29 per cent. said they did not have accommodation arranged on release, compared to 33 per cent. in a similar survey undertaken in November and December 2001.

    The Prison Service is investing an additional £14.5 million a year in its Custody to Work initiative. This is geared to increasing the number of prisoners securing employment and accommodation on release.

    1281W
    The initiative is helping to support the development and delivery of housing advice -and support services in some prisons.

    The Government are drawing up a national rehabilitation action plan responding to the July 2002 Social Exclusion Unit report on reducing re-offending by released prisoners. The action plan, which we expect to publish in the early part of this year, will include the development of a national strategy to improve accommodation outcomes for offenders.

    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the original budget allocations were for HM Prison Brixton for each of the years from 1997 to 2003. [152707]

    Paul Goggins
    The following table shows the final budget allocations for Brixton for each year between 1997 and 2003. Original budget allocations by establishment are not held beyond the end of each year. Total budget allocations in the three years 1997–2000 were on a cash basis, in 2000–03 they were on a resource basis and in 2000–01 included the budget for property costs (depreciation and interest charges) but these have been excluded from the following figures.

    £

    Budget allocations

    1997–98

    17,490,813

    1998–99

    17,677,121

    1999–2000

    17,488,467

    2000–01

    18,093,685

    2001–02

    18,311,290

    2002–03

    18,995,678

    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the survey to identify new sites for prisons will be completed. [152703]

    Paul Goggins
    A survey to identify potential sites for new prisons that are available on the open market commenced last November. The results are currently being analysed and the Prison Service hopes to be in a position to proceed with negotiations for purchase of the most suitable sites later in the spring.

    Mrs. Brooke
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedures are in place to ensure that prisons maintain accurate records of foreign national prisoners in the establishment. [151077]

    Paul Goggins
    As part of the reception procedure in prisons the nationality of all prisoners is recorded in their core record.

    Mrs. Brooke
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much funding the women's foreign national support group Hibiscus received from the Home Office in each year since 1997. [151078]
    1282W
    Paul Goggins
    Hibiscus receives money from a variety of sources. The Prison Service has funded Hibiscus's activities since 1998–99. The amounts funded, by various orisons and HO groups are as follows:

    £

    1998–99

    20,000

    2001–02

    54,354

    2002–03

    54,096

    2003–04

    80,346

    Mrs. Brooke
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what special training and guidance is provided for prison officers working in prisons with a large proportion of foreign national prisoners. [151083]

    Paul Goggins
    [holding answer 26 January 2004]Prison staff are trained to deal with the different needs of all prisoners, including foreign nationals.

    The Prison Service recently signed a new contract with Language Line, a 24 hour telephone interpreting service, which is available for prisoners and includes training for staff. A number of prisons holding large numbers of foreign national prisoners work with the voluntary organisation Hibiscus who run training days in their establishments.

    In order to ensure that Foreign National prisoners are informed about prison life, Prisoner Information Books are made available in different languages. These are to be replaced by the Foreign Prisoners Resource Pack, which is due to be published soon. This pack will contain a section for staff in prisons to ensure that they are aware of the relevant information.

    The Prison Service continues to work in partnership with other agencies to minimise any language or cultural difficulties experienced by foreign national prisoners.

    Mr. Wiggin
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many female prisoners are from Wales, broken down by offences for which they are held; [150466]

    (2) how many life sentence prisoners are being held in prisons in England (a) whose last place of residence before sentence was in Wales and (b) who have requested a transfer to prison in Wales; [150467]

    (3) how many young offenders from Wales there were in penal institutions at the latest date for which figures are available; [150469]

    (4) how many (a) male and (b) female prisoners from Wales are held in prison in England, broken down by offences for which they are held; [150471]

    (5) how many prisoners there are in each Welsh prison. [150472]

    Paul Goggins
    Information on a prisoner's place of residence prior to being sentenced/remanded in custody is not held centrally. The information provided as follows cover prisoners on remand who were committed
    1283W
    by courts in Wales and prisoners under sentence who were sentenced by courts in Wales.

    Young people are aged under 21 but include some 21-year-olds who were aged 20 or under at conviction who have not been reclassified as part of the adult population.

    As at 30 November 2003, there were 179 life sentence prisoners in prisons in England, who were sentenced from courts in Wales. Information is not held centrally on the number of life sentenced prisoners who have requested a transfer to prison in Wales.

    As at 30 November 2003, the population of young people in prison in England and Wales included 112 remand prisoners committed by courts in Wales, and 505 sentenced prisoners sentenced by courts in Wales.

    The number of male and female prisoners in prison in England, as at 30 November 2003, by offence group, who were committed or sentenced from courts in Wales is given in the tables.

    Remand prisoners in prison in England at 30 November 2003, who were committed by courts in Wales by offence and sex

    Female

    Male

    Violence against the person

    10

    21

    Sex offences

    2

    4

    Burglary

    2

    16

    Robbery

    2

    12

    Theft and handling

    11

    10

    Fraud and forgery

    0

    4

    Drug offences

    3

    19

    Other offences

    6

    16

    Population of adult prisoners at end of June

    Establishment

    1997

    1998

    1999

    2000

    2001

    2002

    2003

    Cardiff

    576

    618

    581

    519

    616

    644

    682

    Swansea

    252

    266

    245

    230

    187

    361

    360

    Usk/Prescoed

    258

    202

    276

    278

    312

    322

    374

    Pare

    0

    450

    534

    468

    558

    477

    543

    Population of young people in prison at end of June

    Establishment

    1997

    1998

    1999

    2000

    2001

    2002

    2003

    Cardiff

    145

    89

    120

    1

    0

    1

    0

    Swansea

    77

    59

    76

    65

    0

    0

    0

    Usk/Prescoed

    49

    23

    16

    17

    17

    9

    10

    Pare

    0

    244

    242

    345

    360

    450

    459

    Population includes prisoners on authorised absence

    Operational Capacity on the last Friday in June

    Establishment

    1997

    1998

    1999

    2000

    2001

    2002

    2003

    Cardiff

    716

    716

    722

    707

    638

    669

    669

    Swansea

    350

    326

    346

    346

    201

    366

    368

    Usk

    187

    206

    206

    211

    220

    220

    242

    Prescoed

    128

    128

    128

    128

    128

    128

    170

    Pare

    0

    850

    920

    920

    948

    968

    1,028

    Pare prison opened in November 1997.
    1284W

    Sentenced prisoners in prison in England at 30 November 2003, who were sentenced by courts in Wales by offence and sex

    Female

    Male

    Violence against the person

    35

    355

    Sex offences

    1

    192

    Burglary

    9

    186

    Robbery

    21

    142

    Theft and handling

    21

    73

    Fraud and forgery

    6

    13

    Drug offences

    30

    182

    Other offences

    17

    156

    Offence not recorded

    0

    3

    The prison population, as at 30 November 2003, in each prison in Wales is given in the table.

    Prison population of prisons in Wales, 30 November 2003

    Cardiff

    661

    Pare

    945

    Swansea

    346

    Usk/Prescoed

    397

    Mr. Wiggin
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) adult prisoners, (b) young offenders and (c) prison spaces there were in each prison in Wales for each year since 1997. [151730]

    Paul Goggins
    The number of adults and young people in prison, and the operational capacity of each prison from June 1997 to June 2003, is given in the following tables.

    Young people are defined as those aged under 21 but include some 21-years-olds who were aged 20 or under at conviction who have not been reclassified as part of the adult population.
    1285W
    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to whom the Ombudsman for Prisons and Probation will report the findings of his investigations into deaths of(a) prisoners, (b) probationers and (c) detainees in immigration removal centres. [150728]

    Paul Goggins
    [holding answer 26 January 2004]Details of the new arrangements have yet to be finalised. It is proposed that the Ombudsman will send his reports to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, the relevant Service, the family of the deceased, and the Coroner.

    Probation Service
    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evaluation his Department made of the restructuring of the Probation Service following its restructuring in April 2001. [150714]

    Paul Goggins
    The structural changes introduced under the Criminal Justice Act 2000 and implemented from April 2001 were managed as a change programme overseen by National Director (latterly the Director General) of the National Probation Service (NPS) based within the Home Office.

    The strategy for the change programme was set out in a three-year strategic document, "A New Choreography". The Office of Government Commerce independently reviewed the initial programme in October 2001. They commended the restructure and noted early performance improvements. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Probation has covered issues relevant to restructuring, such as governance, training and race equality, in recent reports.

    Service-wide performance improvements have continued and these are monitored in regular NPS performance reports.

    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of offenders under the management of the Probation Service have been serviced by non-qualified probation personnel over the last 12 months. [150715]

    Paul Goggins
    The information requested is not held centrally.

    Offenders may be supervised by a variety of people who deliver both statutory and non-statutory interventions. These will include probation staff and others from partnership agencies. All probation staff who supervise offenders have been assessed and trained for this work. Probation officers and probation service officers have professional qualifications as do specialist staff, such as psychologists.

    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many probation field staff were employed in(a) Coventry, (b) the West Midlands and (c) England in each year since 2000. [151190]

    Paul Goggins
    [holding answer 29 January 2004]The information requested is as follows.
    1286W

    Number of Probation Field Staff1,2

    31 December 20003

    31 December 2001

    31 December 2002

    30 June 2003

    (a) Coventry

    15

    17

    24

    431

    (b) West Midlands

    541

    774

    645

    706

    (c) England and Wales

    8,462

    9,665

    510,439

    11,128

    1 Figures include Senior Probation Officers, Senior Practitioners, Probation Officers, Trainee Probation Officers and Probation Service Officers employed in all functions excluding Prisons and Courts.

    2 Figures shown as full time equivalent (FTC)

    3 The figures for December 2000 also exclude those employed within Family Court Welfare. This service transferred during 2001 into Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS).

    4 Information provided by West Midlands Probation Area at 31 December 2003

    5 Figures for December 2002 include Sussex figures at June 2002.

    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on funding available for the provision of intensive services to offenders on release by the Probation Service. [151192]

    Paul Goggins
    [holding answer 29 January 2004]The National Probation Service (NPS) is funding or part funding 15 intensive supervision and monitoring schemes (ISMs) which aim to reduce reoffending by persistent offenders. ISMs operate as part of a community sentence or a post custodial licence. Funding was provided for two years by the NPS and the Criminal Justice System Reserve (CJS) which will expire in April 2004. After that areas are expected to have made their own arrangements to fund the projects locally. It is also expected that some continuation funding will be available from the CJS Reserve for an additional year.

    Persistent offenders are defined as those who are aged 18 or over and have been convicted of six or more recordable offences in the last year. ISM schemes target the most prolific offenders in a locality. These are the most serious of persistent offenders. Therefore, in addition to six convictions in the last year, those selected will also usually be the target of local police intelligence.

    ISM schemes provide intensive surveillance and supervision of offenders, offering fast access to services and support for rehabilitation, alongside swift action and penalties for non-compliance. They incorporate a partnership between police and probation, two agencies that have historically worked in different areas of criminal justice, through the joint aims of apprehending offenders at the same time as addressing offenders' needs. As part of these projects, the police and probation services also work together with other partner agencies such as: providers of housing, education and training, alcohol and drug abuse treatment groups, leisure facilities and employment services.

    The ISMs are subject to independent evaluation, which is due to report in spring 2004. A number of areas operate similar schemes to the probation funded ISMs. Plans to deal with persistent offenders will be included as part of the regional resettlement strategies which are to be developed over the next 12 months.

    Public Bodies
    Keith Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who the members of the(a) Horserace

    1287W
    Totalisator Board, (b) Service Authorities for the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad, (c) Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England and (d) Parole Board to the Prison Service were on 1 January; what their term of office is in each case; and whether they are remunerated. [151812]

    Paul Goggins
    The information requested is set out in the table and lists the members of the following bodies on 1 January 2004, their term of office and whether they are remunerated. Excluded are data for(a) Horserace Totalisator Board as this body is now under the Department of Culture, Media and Sport's remit, and (b) Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England, which now falls under Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

    Body/Member

    Length of term

    Remunerated

    NCS Service Authority

    Paul Lever

    2 years

    Yes

    Caroline Burton

    2 years

    Yes

    Jennifer Harvey

    2 years

    Yes

    Home Office representative

    2 years

    No

    ACPO1 representative

    4 years

    No

    ACPO representative

    4 years

    No

    APA2 representative

    4 years

    Yes

    APA representative

    4 years

    Yes

    HMCE3 representative

    4 years

    No

    NCIS Service Authority

    Paul Lever

    2 years

    Yes

    Caroline Burton

    2 years

    Yes

    Jennifer Harvey

    2 years

    Yes

    Home Office representative

    2 years

    No

    ACPO representative

    4 years

    No

    ACPO representative

    4 years

    No

    APA representative

    4 years

    Yes

    HMCE representative

    4 years

    No

    Head of Serious Crime, Security Service

    4 years

    No

    Scottish representative

    4 years

    No

    Northern Ireland representative

    4 years

    No

    Parole Board

    Janet Lindsay Addyman

    6 years 2 months

    Yes

    Akintunde Akinkunmi

    3 years 3 months

    Yes

    Michael Alcock

    3 years 3 months

    Yes

    Kofi Appiah

    6 years 2 months

    Yes

    Ann Faith Barker

    3 years

    Yes

    Claire Barkley

    3 years

    Yes

    Fiona Barrie

    3 years 3 months

    Yes

    Arnold Barrow

    3 years 3 months

    Yes

    Peter Benson

    3 years 3 months

    No

    Colin Berry

    7 years 2 months

    Yes

    Inigo Bing

    3 years 3 months

    No

    John Boal

    3 years

    No

    Louise Bowers

    3 years 3 months

    Yes

    Sally A. R. Brady

    3 years

    Yes

    David Brown

    6 years 3 months

    Yes

    Mark Brown

    3 years 3 months

    No

    Penny Buller

    9 years 3 months

    Yes

    Sir Alexander Butterfield

    3 years

    No

    John Quentin Campbell

    3 years

    No

    Margaret Carey

    6 years 3 months

    Yes

    Lawrence P. Chesterman

    3 years

    Yes

    Barry Chipchase

    3 years 3 months

    Yes

    Tia Cockrell

    6 years 3 months

    Yes

    Jeremy Connor

    6 years 2 months

    No

    Thomas Cook

    6 years 3 months

    Yes

    Allan Gerald Corless

    6 years 3 months

    Yes

    Graham W. A. Cottle

    3 years 3 months

    No

    Keith Charles Cutler

    3 years

    No

    Susan Lesley Davenport

    6 years 2 months

    Yes

    Jo C. Dobry

    3 years

    Yes

    Paul Dodgson

    3 years 3 months

    No

    Roland Doven

    6 years 3 months

    Yes

    Mark Dyer

    3 years 3 months

    No

    Esmond Faulks

    3 years 3 months

    No

    Mathew Fiander

    3 years 3 months

    Yes

    Peter Fingret

    3 years 3 months

    No

    Giles Charles Forrester

    3 years 3 months

    No

    1288W

    Body/Member

    Length of term

    Remunerated

    Diana Fulbrook

    3 years

    Yes

    William Gage

    3 years

    No

    Jane Margaret Geraghty

    3 years

    Yes

    Stephen M. J. Goode CBE

    3 years 3 months

    Yes

    John Keith Harding CBE

    3 years 3 months

    Yes

    W. Gareth Hawkesworth

    3 years

    No

    Michael Philip Hennesse

    6 years 2 months

    Yes

    Debbie Hill

    3 years 3 months

    Yes

    Lesley Hilton

    6 years 2 months

    Yes

    Estelle J. Hindley

    6 years 2 months

    No

    Julia Holman

    3 years 3 months

    Yes

    Trevor J. Hoyland

    3 years 3 months

    Yes

    Judith Caroline Hughes QC

    3 years 3 months

    No

    C. Chris Hunter

    3 years

    Yes

    Kyrie Llinos James

    3 years 3 months

    Yes

    Geoffrey Kamil

    6 years 3 months

    No

    B. Mary Kane

    9 years 3 months

    Yes

    Ardash Kaul

    3 years

    Yes

    Andrew Keen

    3 years 3 months

    Yes

    Ian Keitch

    8 years

    Yes

    Anwar William Khan

    6 years 3 months

    Yes

    Assia King

    6 years 2 months

    Yes

    Roy David King

    3 years

    Yes

    Dora Kohen

    6 years 1 month

    Yes

    Brenda P. M. Large

    6 years 3 months

    Yes

    Timothy Lawrence

    6 years 2 months

    No

    Sarah Lightfoot

    3 years 3 months

    Yes

    Robin James Lipscombe

    6 years 3 months

    Yes

    Rachael Loveridge

    3 years 3 months

    Yes

    Kerry P. M. Macgill

    3 years

    Yes

    Judith M. Mackenzie

    6 years 2 months

    Yes

    Robert B. Mathers

    6 years 2 months

    Yes

    David Charles Mawson

    3 years

    Yes

    Hamish McClelland

    8 years 3 months

    Yes

    Linda E. McHugh

    3 years 3 months

    Yes

    John Graeme McNaught

    6 years 2 months

    No

    Christopher Metcalf

    3 years 3 months

    No

    David Mole

    3 years 3 months

    No

    Anne Molyneux

    3 years 3 months

    Yes

    Angela Montgomery

    6 years 3 months

    Yes

    Heather M. Morgan

    6 years 3 months

    Yes

    David Wynn Morgan

    3 years 3 months

    No

    Steven C. Murphy

    3 years

    Yes

    David Mylan

    3 years

    Yes

    D. E. Paul Nicholson

    6 years 3 months

    Yes

    Richard O'Flynn

    3 years

    Yes

    Richard B. L. Osborn

    6 years 3 months

    Yes

    Tanya Ossack

    3 years 3 months

    Yes

    Sarah Page

    3 years 3 months

    Yes

    Peter Palmer

    3 years

    Yes

    J. Graham Park CBE

    8 years 3 months

    Yes

    Barbara Ann Parn

    3 years 3 months

    Yes

    Sylvia Peach

    3 years

    Yes

    Anthony Pembrooke

    6 years 2 months

    Yes

    Judith Pitchers

    6 years 2 months

    Yes

    David Philip Pugsley

    6 years 2 months

    No

    Malcolm Rae

    3 years 3 months

    Yes

    Alistair John Reeve

    6 years 3 months

    Yes

    Steven Robbins

    3 years

    No

    John Mervyn Roberts

    3 years 3 months

    No

    Andrew F. Rutherford

    3 years

    Yes

    John Sadlik

    9 years 3 months

    Yes

    Gwyneth Ann Sampson

    3 years 3 months

    Yes

    Audrey O. H. Sander

    6 years 3 months

    No

    Girish Chander Shetty

    9 years 3 months

    Yes

    Alan Douglas Smith

    3 years 3 months

    Yes

    James Spencer QC

    3 years 3 months

    No

    John Wilfred Staples

    6 years 2 months

    Yes

    Nigel A. Stone

    9 years 3 months

    Yes

    Margaret Stone

    3 years 3 months

    Yes

    Marion Swan

    6 years 3 months

    Yes

    Barbara Swyer

    3 years 3 months

    Yes

    Diana Tamlyn

    7 years 1 month

    Yes

    Kay Christina Terry

    3 years 3 months

    Yes

    Anthony Thornton QC

    3 years 3 months

    No

    Lynne D. Tolan

    6 years 3 months

    Yes

    Jo M. Turnbull

    3 years

    Yes

    Susan Vivian-Byrne

    3 years 3 months

    Yes

    Helen Ward

    3 years 3 months

    Yes

    Brian Watling QC

    3 years 3 months

    No

    Mollie Jane Weatheritt

    6 years

    Yes

    Tessa West

    6 years 3 months

    Yes

    Alan Keith Whiffen

    6 years 3 months

    Yes

    1289W

    Body/Member

    Length of term

    Remunerated

    Richard G. Whitfield

    6 years 3 months

    Yes

    Peter Wilshaw

    6 years 3 months

    Yes

    Simon Wood

    6 years 3 months

    Yes

    Anne J. Worall

    3 years

    Yes

    Yaa F. Yeboah

    3 years 3 months

    Yes

    1Association of Chief Police Officers.

    2Association of Police Authorities.

    3HM Customs and Excise

    Rehabilitation Programmes
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which rehabilitation programmes have been the most effective in reducing the reconviction rate; and what plans he has to extend these programmes to all prisons. [148907]

    Paul Goggins
    Prisoners are imprisoned for many different kinds of offences, ranging widely in character and seriousness. No one programme is likely to be effective in reducing re-offending on the part of all offenders. The Correctional Services Accreditation Panel accredits programmes which are based on the international evidence about what is likely to be effective in reducing re-offending. Cognitive skills programmes, sex offender treatment programmes, drug treatment programmes and therapeutic communities have all been accredited, as well as programmes designed to address violent offending and domestic violence specifically. These interventions are subject to ongoing evaluation, including research into their impact on reconviction rates.

    Over 100 prison establishments currently run accredited programmes and although the overall number is increasing there are no plans at present to extend them to every prison, as they are not suitable for all prisoners, particularly those serving short sentences. All prison establishments, however, are required to provide constructive regimes which address offending behaviour, improve educational and work skills and promote law abiding behaviour in custody and after release. Other activities which support rehabilitation and address prisoners' resettlement needs include learning and skills, prison work, involvement in pre-release programmes, housing advice and support services, Jobcentre Plus prison surgeries and job search training and support.

    The establishment of a new single National Offender Management Service will focus on reducing re-offending and equipping offenders to turn away from crime. Regional offender managers will, in the future, be responsible for commissioning offender management services and interventions to reduce re-offending.

    Risk of Sexual Harm Orders
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many risk of sexual harm orders have been issued. [150331]

    Paul Goggins
    The Sexual Offences Act 2003, which provided for the risk of sexual harm orders, is not due to come into force until May 2004. As a result no risk of sexual harm orders have yet been made.
    1290W

    Sentences
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on changes in sentence lengths since 1991. [150350]

    Paul Goggins
    Information on trends in sentencing is contained in chapter 4 of Criminal statistics, England and Wales, 2002 (Cm 6054) published in December 2003.

    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are taken to ensure consistency of sentencing practice. [150354]

    Paul Goggins
    The recent Criminal Justice Act 2003 created the Sentencing Guidelines Council. The purpose of the council is to produce robust and comprehensive sentencing guidelines. By providing an important bridge between what legislation provides and how that legislation is used, the guidelines will assist the courts in their task of effecting consistent and just disposals in all cases.

    Mrs. Brooke
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will ask the Sentencing Guidelines Council to consider reducing overall sentencing lengths for offences not involving violence, drugs or sexual matters. [152752]

    Paul Goggins
    It is the role of the Sentencing Guidelines Council to issue guidance on all aspects of sentencing so as to promote consistent and just sentencing by the courts within the framework provided by Parliament. The guidance will be issued following an evaluation period and will be proportionate in severity to the nature of the offence.

    It will be for the Council to make its proposals, and there will be opportunities for criminal justice professionals, the public and Parliament to make their views known to the Council. While no type of criminal behaviour can be condoned or minimised, the Home Secretary has made clear that custody should be reserved for serious offenders.

    Serious Criminal Offenders (Travel)
    Mark Tami
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals were charged with serious criminal offences and allowed to travel outside in each of the last five years. [150802]

    Paul Goggins
    This information is not held centrally.

    Sex Abuse Guidelines
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when the updated guidelines on anonymity for those accused of historical sex abuse were sent to police forces; [148881]

    (2) what the terms of guidelines on anonymity for those accused of historical sex abuse (a) were before and (b) are since recent amendments were put into effect. [148882]

    Paul Goggins
    The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has amended its guidelines to all police forces to give greater prominence to the rules that govern the release of information about anyone suspected of, but not yet charged with, an offence. The
    1291W
    guidance underlines that suspects should not be named before charge and goes on to highlight the possible dangers of doing so, in that not only is there the risk of causing irreparable damage to a suspect's reputation, but also that unwarranted disclosure could leave a force open to civil proceedings. Updated guidance was sent to all police forces via the ACPO intranet in October 2003 and may be viewed on www.acpo.police.uk. We have asked that a copy of previous guidance be sent to my hon. Friend.

    Speeding
    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans for increases in fines for drivers caught speeding; and how the extra money raised will help victims of(a) crime and (b) road traffic accidents. [149095]

    Paul Goggins
    [holding answer 21 January 2004]I would refer my hon. Friend to the Written Ministerial Statement made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 12 January 2004,Official Report, column 18WS. This announced the publication of a consultation paper entitled 'Compensation and Support for Victims of Crime', which set out proposals to provide a wide range of support for victims of crime and to amend the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme.

    A central plank of the proposals was to make all offenders pay for their crimes and to help all victims.

    One of the key proposals was to add a surcharge to all criminal convictions, and to fixed penalty notices for criminal offences. The surcharge would be additional to the fine or any other penalty imposed, and would be payable by those who were convicted of a criminal offence, those who receive a penalty notice for disorder, and those who receive a fixed penalty notice for a road traffic offence, including drivers breaking the law by speeding.

    The money raised through the surcharge would go into a new Victims' Fund, as would monies raised in the other ways described in the consultation paper. The money from that fund would be spent directly on services for victims of crime including, for example, victims of rape and sexual assault, victims of domestic
    1292W
    violence and hate crime, and the many seriously injured victims of road traffic incidents and the bereaved relatives of victims.

    We welcome comment on all the ideas and proposals set out in the consultation paper. Subject to the outcome of this consultation exercise, we propose to legislate to make the changes, where necessary, through amendments to the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill currently before Parliament.

    Wetherby Young Offenders Institution
    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 14 January 2004,Official Report, column 762W, on HMYOI Wetherby, what the reasons were for the increase in (a) costs per prisoner and (b) cost per prisoner place at HMYOI Wetherby. [151131]

    Paul Goggins
    Baseline funding for HMYOI Wetherby has risen from £6.7 million in 1998–99 to £10.2 million in 2002–03. The change from cash to resource based accounting over this period reflects part of this increase, but the major structural and regime changes at HMYOI Wetherby following its re-role to a juvenile only establishment have been the main reason for increased funding. This increase has led to a greatly improved regime generating improved numeracy and literacy among prisoners, better opportunities for training and employment, increased employability through practical and vocational activities and the addressing of offending behaviour issues.

    Women Prisoners
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women prisoners there are; and how many are imprisoned for offences relating to drugs. [145289]

    Paul Goggins
    The number of females in prison in England and Wales on 30 January 2004 was 4,378.

    At the end of May 2003 (the most recent published data covering the detail required to answer the question) there were 176 females on remand for drugs offences and 1,318 females under sentence for drugs offences, out of a total female population of 4,495.

CABINET OFFICE

  Civil Servants
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many civil servants, broken down by grade, there

  Permanent staff in post by Department and responsibility level as at 1 January 1997 and 1 April 2003

  1 April 2003

  Headcount

  Department

  SCS Level

  Grade 6

  Grade 7

  SEO

  HEO

  EO

  AO

  AA

  Other

  Total

  Cabinet Office

  190

  420

  70

  430

  380

  370

  110

  —

  1,960

  COI

  10

  10

  40

  120

  100

  50

  30

  10

  —

  360

  Security and Intelligence Services

  30

  60

  200

  620

  1,210

  1,740

  680

  150

  —

  4,690

  DCMS

  30

  20

  80

  130

  ..

  120

  100

  —

  —

  480

  MOD

  190

  280

  900

  2,020

  4,810

  6,290

  9,060

  6,670

  10,740

  40,950

  Royal Fleet Auxiliary

  —

  60

  110

  190

  110

  50

  —

  —

  1,990

  2,500

  Armed Forces Personnel Admin Agency

  ..

  ..

  10

  20

  50

  50

  40

  10

  —

  180

  Army Base Repair Organisation

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,000

  2,000

  Army Trng. &Rec. Agency

  ..

  20

  30

  100

  470

  1,210

  1,080

  480

  980

  4,370

  Army Personnel Centre

  —

  ..

  ..

  10

  80

  120

  470

  150

  ..

  830

  Defence Analytical Services Agency

  ..

  ..

  20

  10

  30

  70

  10

  ..

  —

  150

  DARA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,120

  4,120

  Defence Bills Agency

  ..

  —

  ..

  10

  30

  110

  380

  100

  ..

  630

  Def Comms and Services Agency

  ..

  20

  80

  310

  680

  1,030

  640

  200

  250

  3,220

  Defence Dental Agency

  —

  ..

  30

  ..

  10

  20

  80

  30

  10

  170

  Defence Estates

  10

  40

  150

  330

  260

  280

  290

  70

  120

  1,530

  Defence Science and Tech. Lab.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,090

  3,090

  Def Geog Img Intel Agency

  —

  ..

  20

  70

  200

  230

  190

  60

  40

  800

  DHE

  ..

  ..

  20

  60

  110

  280

  340

  20

  60

  890

  Defence Intel and Security Centre

  —

  —

  10

  10

  30

  20

  40

  30

  20

  140

  British Forces Post Office

  —

  —

  ..

  ..

  10

  60

  70

  210

  30

  380

  DPA

  40

  100

  330

  1,060

  1,060

  490

  480

  150

  90

  3,800

  DSDA

  ..

  10

  10

  60

  200

  620

  540

  220

  2,880

  4,530

  Defence Trnspt and Mvmnts Agency

  —

  —

  ..

  ..

  20

  30

  100

  10

  140

  290

  Defence Vetting Agency

  ..

  ..

  ..

  10

  130

  30

  70

  50

  —

  290

  Disposal Services Agency

  ..

  —

  ..

  10

  20

  20

  20

  ..

  —

  70

  Duke of Yorks Royal Military School

  —

  ..

  ..

  ..

  50

  ..

  20

  ..

  20

  110

  Met Office

  —

  —

  —

  —

  ..

  ..

  —

  —

  2,130

  2,130

  MOD Police

  ..

  20

  40

  220

  550

  2,650

  50

  30

  3,560

  Naval Manning Agency

  —

  —

  ..

  ..

  20

  10

  50

  20

  —

  110

  Naval Recruitment and Training Agency

  ..

  ..

  20

  60

  120

  340

  170

  190

  160

  1,060

  Pay and Personnel Agency

  ..

  ..

  10

  20

  60

  170

  370

  100

  ..

  730

  Queen Victoria School

  —

  —

  ..

  ..

  30

  10

  10

  10

  10

  70

  RAF Personnel Mngmnt Agency

  —

  —

  ..

  ..

  10

  30

  110

  70

  —

  220

  RAF Training Group Defence Agency

  —

  —

  30

  40

  380

  510

  430

  380

  300

  2,080

  Service Childrens Education

  ..

  ..

  30

  80

  550

  30

  20

  —

  —

  720

  UK Hydrographic Office

  —

  —

  —

  ..

  —

  —

  —

  ..

  960

  960

  Veterans Agency

  ..

  20

  10

  20

  50

  270

  330

  170

  —

  880

  DMETA

  10

  ..

  10

  20

  60

  100

  170

  140

  160

  650

  Warship Support Agency

  10

  50

  180

  540

  1,010

  1,100

  1.04

  660

  650

  5,240

  ODPM

  130

  80

  470

  300

  640

  680

  560

  90

  —

  2,940

  DfES

  130

  100

  630

  680

  1,310

  1,270

  890

  210

  —

  J5,220

  DEFRA

  160

  120

  500

  780

  1,470

  1,440

  1,770

  690

  10

  6,940

  Central Science Laboratory

  ..

  20

  60

  70

  140

  170

  170

  40

  ..

  670

  CEFAS

  ..

  20

  30

  80

  110

  140

  160

  20

  —

  560

  Pesticide Safety Directorate

  ..

  ..

  20

  30

  60

  30

  30

  20

  —

  180

  Veterinary Laboratories Agency

  ..

  20

  50

  140

  120

  240

  470

  320

  —

  1,360

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate

  ..

  ..

  10

  20

  10

  20

  40

  10

  —

  120

  Home Office

  180

  230

  660

  1,110

  2,410

  6,300

  4,140

  2,140

  20

  17,180

  Charity Commission

  10

  —

  40

  60

  140

  180

  110

  40

  —

  580

  HM Prison Service

  70

  180

  470

  2,160

  530

  4,570

  7,370

  25,810

  2,970

  44,110

  Crown Prosecution Service

  50

  170

  390

  1,780

  910

  1,590

  1,700

  850

  —

  7,440

  Legal Secretariat

  10

  10

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  10

  ..

  —

  30

  Treasury Solicitors Department

  50

  120

  130

  50

  30

  80

  60

  20

  ..

  540

  CPSI

  ..

  10

  ..

  ..

  10

  ..

  10

  —

  —

  40

  DCA

  90

  80

  270

  290

  530

  380

  290

  50

  —

  1,980

  Court Service

  20

  30

  130

  190

  970

  2,030

  4,790

  2,100

  —

  10,250

  Public Guardianships Office

  ..

  10

  10

  80

  30

  110

  50

  10

  —

  310

  HM Land Registry

  40

  190

  160

  430

  1,850

  3,340

  2,440

  490

  —

  8,940

  1294W
  are in the office and the agencies for which the Office is responsible; and what the figures were in January 1997. [150259]

  Mr. Alexander
  The breakdown requested is shown for all departments in the following tables. Some departments and agencies have changed names and/or structure following Machinery of Government changes between the two dates.

  The numbers and totals are rounded to the nearest ten from the raw data. Any numbers less than five are represented by "..", whereas entries in the tables represented by "—" signify no data.
  1295W

  Permanent staff in post by Department and responsibility level as at 1 January 1997 and 1 April 2003

  1 April 2003

  Headcount

  Department

  SCS Level

  Grade 6

  Grade 7

  SEO

  HEO

  EO

  AO

  AA

  Other

  Total

  Department of Trade and Industry

  250

  280

  690

  440

  1,180

  950

  930

  190

  70

  4,970

  Companies House

  ..

  ..

  20

  30

  80

  190

  540

  280

  —

  1,130

  Employment Tribunals Service

  ..

  ..

  10

  30

  20

  130

  530

  —

  —

  720

  Insolvency Service

  ..

  10

  60

  160

  370

  200

  510

  170

  ..

  1,490

  Nat Weights and Measures Lab

  ..

  ..

  10

  10

  20

  10

  10

  ..

  —

  60

  Patent Office

  30

  10

  110

  110

  280

  110

  280

  110

  —

  1,020

  Radiocommunications Agency

  10

  20

  30

  60

  140

  190

  130

  20

  —

  590

  SBS

  10

  20

  40

  20

  70

  50

  50

  10

  —

  270

  ACAS

  10

  20

  50

  200

  310

  190

  120

  ..

  —

  900

  ECGD

  20

  10

  60

  40

  100

  70

  60

  20

  —

  390

  DVLA

  ..

  30

  40

  110

  310

  660

  2,600

  1,920

  —

  5,660

  DSA

  ..

  10

  20

  30

  130

  1,530

  140

  370

  —

  2,220

  Highways Agency

  30

  50

  200

  590

  180

  370

  300

  30

  —

  1,750

  Planning Inspectorate

  10

  200

  100

  40

  70

  110

  140

  60

  ..

  740

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  ..

  —

  10

  20

  30

  10

  30

  10

  —

  110

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  ..

  10

  30

  90

  230

  1,280

  540

  200

  160

  2,530

  Health and Safety Executive

  50

  130

  630

  1,290

  620

  530

  1,020

  —

  —

  4,260

  OFWAT

  10

  10

  10

  100

  ..

  10

  100

  —

  —

  240

  OS

  10

  20

  50

  160

  350

  930

  260

  —

  10

  1,780

  DfT

  80

  30

  270

  220

  420

  400

  450

  70

  —

  1,940

  HM Treasury

  90

  —

  270

  340

  —

  140

  170

  20

  ..

  1,040

  Customs and Excise

  100

  140

  400

  1,760

  5,340

  7,950

  5,510

  1,750

  ..

  22,950

  GAD

  30

  ..

  10

  ..

  30

  10

  10

  ..

  —

  100

  Inland Revenue

  270

  1,000

  1,930

  2,430

  6,930

  16,730

  32,240

  17,070

  ..

  78,610

  Valuation Office

  10

  80

  300

  790

  880

  900

  300

  970

  ..

  4,230

  ONS

  40

  30

  240

  230

  650

  810

  1,140

  330

  ..

  3,470

  Royal Mint

  ..

  10

  10

  20

  120

  60

  80

  10

  500

  810

  DWP

  130

  190

  600

  860

  2t240

  5,420

  7,580

  3,170

  —

  20,190

  Child Support Agency

  10

  20

  60

  110

  470

  2,760

  7,680

  1,240

  —

  12,360

  Pension Services

  20

  50

  60

  180

  730

  4,740

  10,780

  1,460

  —

  18,000

  Northern Ireland Office

  30

  —

  30

  10

  40

  40

  30

  30

  —

  190

  Privy Council Office

  ..

  —

  ..

  —

  ..

  10

  10

  ..

  —

  30

  Scottish Executive

  180

  —

  630

  —

  —

  2,190

  1,500

  —

  —

  4,500

  Fisheries Research Services

  ..

  —

  30

  —

  ..

  200

  100

  —

  —

  330

  HM Inspectorate of Education

  10

  —

  80

  —

  —

  10

  60

  —

  —

  160

  Scottish Agricultural Scientific Agency

  ..

  —

  20

  ..

  —

  60

  60

  —

  —

  140

  Scottish Courts Service

  ..

  10

  20

  70

  90

  250

  290

  280

  —

  1,000

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

  ..

  —

  30

  —

  —

  150

  60

  —

  30

  270

  Scottish Prison Service

  10

  10

  30

  80

  680

  2,050

  1,410

  260

  ..

  4,530

  Scottish Office Pensions Agency

  ..

  —

  ..

  —

  —

  60

  180

  —

  —

  240

  Student Awards Agency Scotland

  —

  ..

  ..

  —

  —

  30

  100

  —

  —

  130

  Crown Office and PFS

  50

  30

  110

  250

  180

  140

  700

  ..

  —

  1,450

  General Register Office [Scotland]

  ..

  ..

  10

  —

  —

  100

  120

  —

  —

  220

  National Archive for Scotland

  ..

  —

  10

  —

  —

  50

  90

  —

  —

  150

  Office SOS for Scotland

  10

  —

  30

  —

  —

  30

  40

  —

  —

  100

  Registers of Scotland

  ..

  —

  30

  60

  270

  440

  360

  210

  —

  1,370

  National Assembly for Wales

  90

  40

  270

  290

  750

  840

  840

  370

  10

  3,500

  Cadw

  ..

  ..

  10

  10

  20

  40

  90

  10

  50

  230

  OHMCI

  ..

  50

  —

  ..

  10

  10

  10

  ..

  —

  90

  Wales Office

  ..

  ..

  10

  ..

  10

  10

  10

  10

  ..

  50

  Source:

  Data has been extracted from Mandate with exception of Cabinet Office which is separately supplied.

  Permanent staff in Post by Department and Responsibility Level as at 1 January 1997 and 1 April 2003

  1 January 1997

  Headcount

  Department

  SCS Level

  Grade 6

  Grade 7

  SEO

  HEO

  EO

  AO

  AA

  Other

  Total

  Cabinet Office

  100

  50

  220

  120

  220

  420

  480

  260

  20

  1,890

  Security and Intelligence Services

  30

  40

  150

  400

  960

  2,020

  910

  530

  —

  5,030

  DCMS

  20

  10

  50

  90

  ..

  70

  70

  30

  ..

  340

  MAFF

  100

  110

  300

  590

  850

  1,260

  1,600

  1,300

  120

  6,230

  ADAS

  20

  30

  150

  360

  470

  170

  360

  30

  90

  1,670

  Pesticide Safety Directorate

  ..

  ..

  20

  30

  60

  40

  20

  20

  —

  200

  Veterinary Laboratories Agency

  ..

  10

  40

  120

  80

  160

  340

  270

  ..

  1,020

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate

  ..

  ..

  20

  20

  10

  20

  20

  20

  —

  100

  IBAP

  10

  ..

  20

  40

  110

  220

  420

  130

  —

  960

  Home Office

  110

  60

  410

  490

  1,350

  3,490

  1,890

  1,260

  60

  9,150

  Forensic Science Service

  ..

  10

  70

  130

  160

  170

  240

  90

  —

  860

  Passport Records Agency

  ..

  ..

  10

  10

  50

  170

  600

  690

  —

  1,530

  HM Prison Service

  70

  160

  460

  660

  1,090

  3,970

  24,500

  5,260

  2,820

  39,000

  Crown Prosecution Service

  50

  170

  540

  1,360

  390

  1,330

  1,340

  850

  ..

  6,030

  Legal Secretariat

  10

  ..

  ..

  —

  ..

  ..

  10

  ..

  —

  20

  Treasury Solictors Department

  40

  60

  80

  20

  30

  60

  60

  20

  ..

  380

  Government Property Lawyers (TSOL)

  10

  20

  20

  10

  10

  20

  30

  10

  —

  110

  LCD

  40

  30

  90

  70

  190

  210

  190

  80

  ..

  880

  Court Service

  20

  20

  110

  220

  730

  1,940

  4,710

  2,160

  —

  9,920

  1296W 1297W

  Permanent staff in Post by Department and Responsibility Level as at 1 January 1997 and 1 April 2003

  1 January 1997

  Headcount

  Department

  SCS Level

  Grade 6

  Grade 7

  SEO

  HEO

  EO

  AO

  AA

  Other

  Total

  Public Guardianships Office

  ..

  10

  10

  30

  90

  170

  190

  60

  —

  560

  HM Land Registry

  30

  140

  50

  290

  550

  2,340

  3,250

  1,830

  —

  8,470

  Public Record Office

  ..

  ..

  20

  40

  50

  80

  120

  130

  ..

  440

  Department, of Trade and Industry

  210

  110

  640

  360

  970

  1,060

  1,350

  570

  ..

  5,270

  Companies House

  10

  —

  10

  20

  60

  130

  350

  350

  —

  930

  Insolvency Service

  ..

  10

  60

  110

  350

  210

  360

  240

  —

  1,340

  Nat Weights and Measures Lab

  ..

  —

  ..

  10

  10

  10

  10

  ..

  —

  50

  Patent Office

  30

  10

  140

  80

  50

  140

  190

  120

  —

  740

  Radiocommunications Agency

  10

  10

  30

  60

  100

  180

  90

  50

  —

  520

  ACAS

  10

  10

  20

  110

  220

  60

  150

  30

  —

  590

  ECGD

  10

  ..

  40

  30

  90

  100

  80

  50

  30

  440

  Office of Fair Trading

  10

  ..

  50

  20

  70

  110

  90

  50

  —

  400

  OFGAS

  10

  ..

  10

  10

  20

  30

  10

  10

  —

  100

  OFER

  10

  ..

  30

  10

  50

  50

  50

  30

  —

  240

  DOE (exc. PSA)

  130

  60

  450

  270

  600

  700

  760

  290

  —

  3,270

  Building Research Estab

  10

  20

  110

  150

  —

  170

  110

  60

  ..

  630

  DVLA

  ..

  20

  20

  40

  150

  400

  1,570

  1,630

  ..

  3,830

  DSA

  ..

  ..

  10

  20

  130

  1,450

  130

  460

  —

  2,200

  Fire Service College

  ..

  ..

  10

  10

  30

  20

  40

  30

  50

  180

  Highways Agency

  30

  40

  180

  330

  270

  340

  370

  110

  ..

  1,670

  QEII Conference Centre

  ..

  ..

  ..

  10

  ..

  10

  20

  10

  —

  60

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  —

  ..

  20

  50

  150

  720

  210

  240

  200

  1,580

  Health and Safety Executive

  90

  130

  580

  1,100

  450

  430

  830

  560

  —

  4,160

  OFWAT

  10

  10

  10

  10

  30

  50

  50

  20

  —

  190

  HM Treasury

  80

  10

  160

  250

  —

  130

  250

  70

  ..

  950

  National Investment and Loans Office

  ..

  —

  ..

  ..

  10

  10

  10

  ..

  —

  30

  GCIS (CCTA)

  ..

  10

  30

  50

  30

  20

  30

  ..

  ..

  170

  GAD

  30

  ..

  ..

  ..

  20

  10

  10

  ..

  —

  80

  Inland Revenue

  220

  750

  1,850

  1,500

  5,170

  11,710

  17,900

  14,030

  —

  53,120

  Contributions Agency

  ..

  10

  40

  100

  420

  2,200

  3,330

  1,610

  —

  7,710

  Valuation Office

  20

  130

  290

  730

  660

  790

  790

  1,140

  —

  4,550

  ONS

  30

  20

  160

  170

  470

  750

  1,060

  420

  ..

  3,080

  Registry of Friendly Societies

  10

  10

  20

  20

  20

  40

  40

  20

  ..

  170

  Royal Mint

  10

  10

  10

  20

  100

  100

  100

  30

  620

  990

  Department of Social Security

  80

  60

  200

  150

  520

  560

  760

  510

  —

  2,830

  Benefits Agency

  20

  280

  190

  480

  2,550

  19,160

  42,830

  13,390

  —

  78,900

  Child Support Agency

  ..

  10

  30

  90

  350

  2,170

  4,330

  990

  —

  7,960

  IT Services Agency

  10

  20

  80

  240

  490

  650

  450

  70

  —

  2,000

  Northern Ireland Office

  20

  ..

  20

  10

  30

  40

  40

  50

  —

  210

  Privy Council Office

  ..

  —

  ..

  ..

  ..

  10

  10

  ..

  —

  30

  Lord Advocates Department

  10

  ..

  —

  —

  ..

  ..

  10

  ..

  —

  20

  Crown Office and PFS

  50

  210

  ..

  10

  50

  150

  250

  390

  20

  1,140

  Registers of Scotland

  ..

  ..

  20

  50

  190

  430

  210

  230

  ..

  1,140

  National Assembly for Wales

  60

  20

  130

  110

  280

  470

  480

  420

  20

  1,990

  Cadw

  ..

  ..

  10

  10

  20

  30

  40

  10

  60

  180

  OHMCI

  10

  30

  ..

  ..

  —

  10

  ..

  —

  60

  Source:

  The data have been extracted from Mandate with the exception of Cabinet Office data which are an estimate based on historical unpublished data.

  Tuesday 10 February 2004

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Church Repairs (VAT)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners whether a Church of England cathedral entering into bankruptcy can reclaim VAT paid on church repairs. [152995]

  Sir Stuart Bell
  Under the Listed Places of Worship grant scheme—whose extension until March 2006 the Church of England and other UK faith groups welcome—listed churches and cathedrals can recover the equivalent of 12.5 per cent. on the cost of repairs carried out to those buildings after April 2001, in effect reducing the VAT burden to 5 per cent. The grant scheme makes no special provision in respect of bankruptcy.
  1298W
  On the question of the interaction of the bankruptcy laws and the law relating to charitable corporations such as cathedrals, I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for the City of York (Mr. Bayley) on 2 February 2004.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her best estimate is of the staff time costs in replacing stolen, lost and damaged traps used in the operational Krebs triplets areas. [153925]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  It is not possible to quantify the staff input into individual components of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial.
  1299W
  For the average number of field staff employed in operations associated with the culling trial, and total cost of the Wildlife Unit by financial year, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 22 January 2004, Official Report, column 1366W.

  Fallen Stock
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost to farmers in Lancashire for disposal of fallen cattle stock will be. [153442]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  No assessment has been made of costs to Lancashire farmers. However, we recognise that many livestock farmers will face increased costs as a result of the ban on on-farm burial of fallen stock. That is why the Government and the farming industry are working together to set up a voluntary low cost national scheme which will assist farmers in meeting those costs.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how long the subsidy for the removal of fallen stock will last. [153443]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Defra and the devolved Administrations will subsidise the National Fallen Stock Scheme on a digressive basis for its first three years of operation only. Thereafter, the scheme will be expected to be self-financing.

  Fish (Toxic Chemicals)
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what tests are carried out and with what regularity for the accumulation of toxic chemicals in(a) fresh water fish, (b) saltwater fish and (c) shellfish landed in England. [153112]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Department does not carry out regular testing for the accumulation of toxic chemicals in landed fish and shellfish. However, the Food Standards Agency carries out periodic surveys of species of fish and shellfish used as food, taken from retail sources, markets or from producers. Analysis for contaminants such as organic chemicals and metals is undertaken as the need arises.

  The Environment Agency and CEFAS1 carry out monitoring under the National Maritime Monitoring Programme (NMMP) of marine fish and shellfish for a number of hazardous substances. These include regular monitoring for lead, mercury, cadmium, organochlorines and pesticide residues, and special surveys on particular substances of concern where information is needed. In addition the Agency monitors shellfish waters and shellfish in accordance with the requirements of the Shellfish Waters Directive (79/923) for a similar range of hazardous substances, PCBs and faecal coliform levels. The Environment Agency does not routinely monitor freshwater fish for toxic chemicals but it does commission reports in response to identified areas of particular concern.

  1Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment 1300W
  has been made of the effect on younger fish in a fishery where the stocks are significantly below the optimum economic carrying capacity of a relatively high proportion of large cod, where all other factors are constant. [150919]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The effect of this factor is likely to be very small, because the proportion of large cod in the North Sea cod stock is actually very low, and large cod do not usually compete with small cod for the same species or size of food organisms, so that releasing adult food does not necessarily benefit small fish.

  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what escape behaviour(a) haddock and (b) whiting exhibit to avoid towing gear. [150090]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Most fish (including haddock and whiting) tend to be herded to the mouth of the net. Once at or near to the mouth of the trawl the fish turn and swim in the same direction as the trawl for a period of time.

  When a fish becomes tired it usually will fall back into the trawl cod end. In falling back into the trawl, haddock tend to rise upwards as well as backwards. Whiting also tend to rise up when falling back but not as far as haddock.

  Many fish will also swim for a period inside the cod end. Both whiting and haddock will actively try and escape through large meshes or escape panels if they are fitted in or near to the cod end and if the fish have the energy to do so.

  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the ground gear specifications are for a GOV trawl. [150121]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The GOV trawl is a general purpose trawl with a high headline of 5–6 metres. The design, specification and operation of the GOV trawl are agreed internationally and co-ordinated by International Council for the Exploration of the Sea.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the relationship is between the size of herring stocks and the health of cod fisheries in the North Sea, with reference to(a) the fishing effort directed at and (b) stock levels of sand eels. [150476]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The North Sea herring stock collapsed because of the very high rate of fishing by the unregulated herring fishery in the 1960s, but recovered quite rapidly when the fishery was closed. The herring collapsed well before the principal increase in sandeel fishing effort. The main factor in the decline of the cod stock since the 1970s is the high fishing rate on cod, coupled with reduced cod recruitment since the 1980s. This occurred during a period when sandeel abundance fluctuated but did not decline.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the safety implications arising from the designation of the restricted fishing area in the North Sea in respect of vessels being required to dump haddock catch when they enter the area to avoid bad weather. [152168]
  1301W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  The cod protection area established at the December 2003 Council does not cover waters within 12 miles of the coast and thus excludes the areas in which vessels in bad weather are mostly likely to seek refuge; any vessels with a special haddock permit that do seek refuge in the offshore cod protection area will be required to cease their fishing activities until they have left the area again, but they will not be required to dump their haddock catch.

  Poultry Imports
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many EU countries refuse to import infected chicken, broken down by disease; what plans the UK has to ban the import of infected chickens; and what measures she is taking to ensure that no infected chickens are imported into the UK. [153122]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Under EU law neither chickens nor chicken meat infected with any disease to which poultry is susceptible may be imported into any member state. All chickens and chicken meat imported into the EU must undergo veterinary checks at an approved Border Inspection Post before import is allowed, to ensure that the import requirements have been complied with.

  In view of the outbreaks of Avian Influenza in several South Asian countries, the Government have, as an additional precaution, specifically banned import from all the affected countries of all live birds, unprocessed poultry meat (other than poultry meat from Thailand certified as produced from animals slaughtered before 1 January 2004), and other bird products capable of transmitting the avian influenza virus.

  Ridgeway
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the cost of introducing a single Traffic Restriction Order (TRO) for all those parts of the whole Ridgeway where she and the relevant local authorities have agreed that such a TRO would be appropriate; and what estimate she has made of the total cost were each local authority to impose a separate TRO for its own section of the Ridgeway. [154378]

  Alun Michael
  The costs of Traffic Regulation Orders vary considerably depending on the number and type of objections and whether public inquiries are held. The costs of introducing a single Traffic Regulation Order, as opposed to individual Traffic Regulation Orders on the Ridgeway, cannot be estimated with any certainty. In any event, we think it right that responsibility for such Orders rests generally with local authorities.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Bangladesh over the persecution of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community in that country; and if he will make a statement. [153522]
  1302W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are concerned about the situation of Ahmadiyya Muslims in Bangladesh, and raise this regularly with the Bangladeshi Government. I discussed the issue with the High Commissioner for Bangladesh in London on 22 January. I also met representatives of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Association (UK) on 29 January to hear their concerns. Our High Commissioner in Dhaka raised the issue with the State Minister for Foreign Affairs on 22 and 30 December 2003, and the EU troika raised it with the State Minister on 23 December 2003. Our High Commission in Dhaka is monitoring the situation closely, and we will continue to raise the issue when appropriate.

  Boulos Rezek-Allah
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with(a) the Egyptian Foreign Minister and (b) the Egyptian Ambassador to the Court of St. James's in connection with the treatment of Mr. Boulos Rezek-Allah. [153305]

  Mr. Rammell
  None. However officials from the British Embassy in Cairo have discussed religious issues with the Coptic Church in Egypt and raised our concerns with the Egyptian authorities where appropriate.

  Eritrea
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation of Christians in Eritrea, with particular reference to Evangelicals. [153995]

  Mr. Mullin
  We are concerned about the restrictions on religious freedom in Eritrea. I raised this issue most recently with the government of Eritrea during my visit to Asmara from 13 to 14 January. I also raised it with the Eritrean Foreign Minister and the Eritrean Ambassador in London last December. Our Ambassador in Asmara raises the issue regularly, both bilaterally and in conjunction with our EU partners.

  EU Enlargement
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to encourage the EU to negotiate with(a) Ukraine and (b) Russia in relation to loss of markets arising from accession of the 10 new member states. [153791]

  Mr. MacShane
  We expect that Russian and Ukrainian exporters will benefit significantly from access to the markets of the enlarged EU and that Russia and Ukraine will experience an overall increase in levels of trade.

  The EU has regular meetings with Russia and Ukraine within the framework of the EU/Russia and EU/Ukraine Partnership and Co-operation Agreements. Both Russia and Ukraine have raised the matter of trade relations with the enlarged EU during recent talks, and the EU has undertaken to address their concerns in this area.
  1303W
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which EU member states have agreed to unrestricted admission of workers from the newly joining states from May. [153003]

  Mr. MacShane
  After Accession on 1 May, nationals from the 10 new EU member states will be able to travel freely throughout the EU. However, except for nationals of Malta and Cyprus, they will not automatically be allowed to work in the existing member states. Those existing member states may open their labour markets to nationals from the new member states if they so choose. The Netherlands, Sweden, Ireland, Denmark and the UK have said that they will do this.

  Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands have subsequently set out certain conditions for workers for accession states to enjoy this freedom. In the case of Sweden and the Netherlands these proposals remain under discussion and have yet to be implemented.

  Italy and Portugal have yet to decide whether, when or how to grant free movement of workers from the new member states.

  We are right to open up the UK labour market to those who genuinely want to come here and work. It makes sense for citizens of the new member states to be able to work and contribute to our economy and pay taxes. They will expand the range of skills and supply of workers in the UK economy; and be able to work here legally, paying taxes and national insurance, not confined to the black market.

  As stated in the Explanatory Memorandum for the European Union (Accessions) Act 2003 (Command Paper 5805), safeguards are available if in the event that there are "disturbances to the labour market which could seriously threaten the standard of living or level of employment in a given region or occupation".

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign arid Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the areas where the Government has identified an inaccurate or false declaration by the former Iraqi Government in the declaration on its proscribed weapons of mass destruction programmes submitted to the United Nations Security Council on 7 December 2002, specifying the page number in each case. [152311]

  Mr. MacShane
  A careful examination of Iraq's declaration was undertaken in December 2002 and January 2003 and its contents were compared with the outstanding disarmament issues reported by UNSCOM upon their withdrawal from Iraq and against intelligence assessments available at the time. The results of this examination showed that there was no new information contained in the declaration, and that it therefore failed to address any of the outstanding issues. This failure was borne out by subsequent discoveries by UNMOVIC inspection teams in early 2003, and later by the Iraq Survey Group.
  1304W
  The Iraqi Declaration itself remains a document confidential to the United Nations Security Council. It would not, therefore, be appropriate to go into the detail of the specific contents of any part of the declaration. Huge quantities of documents remain to be translated.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the(a) content and (b) implications of the resignation speech of Dr. David Kay as the leader of the Iraq Survey Group. [152317]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has announced that an inquiry will be instigated to look into the question of the intelligence received concerning Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and how it was interpreted. Dr. Kay's statement will clearly be of interest to the inquiry.

  Sir Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the legal personality is of the Coalition Provisional Authority; and if he will make a statement. [152339]

  Mr. Straw
  As noted in Security Council Resolution 1483 of 22 May 2003, the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) was established to exercise the specific authorities, responsibilities and obligations under international law of the occupying powers. The authority of the CPA is set out in CPA Regulation No. 1, copies of which will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Sir Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what capacity and on whose behalf UK secondees to the Coalition Provisional Authority are acting; who pays their(a) salaries and (b) expenses; to whom they are answerable for their activities; and if he will make a statement. [152340]

  Mr. Straw
  Staff seconded by HMG to the Coalition Provisional Authority are working in several areas of governance, assisting in reconstruction and building Iraqi government capacity. They are acting on behalf of the Coalition Provisional Authority. They remain answerable to HMG for what they do. HMG pays their salaries, travel costs and other incidental expenses. The US government funds the provision of food and other basic services to all Coalition Provisional Authority staff.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many technically trained Arabic speakers are members of the Iraq Survey Group; how many of the Arabic speakers are from the United Kingdom; and what estimate he has made of how long it will take to translate each of the documents obtained by the ISG on Iraq's military programmes that are deemed relevant to weapons of mass destruction. [153058]

  Mr. MacShane
  There are currently 320 technically-trained Arabic speakers with the Iraq Survey Group, of whom three are from the United Kingdom.

  The Iraq Survey Group is still collecting documents. The time that it will take to translate such documents will vary according to the condition of any such documents and whether they are hand-written or typed. The best estimate available is that translation will take

  1305W
  on average one hour per page of text. It is not possible, however, to give any firm indication of how long any translation work might take or of what the eventual total volume of documents requiring translation might be.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures are in place to ensure that women will be fairly represented in the first Iraqi parliament. [153255]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) is overseeing the drafting of a Transitional Administrative Law (TAL) to be completed by the end of February 2004. We are encouraging the IGC to ensure that the TAL includes provisions for the fair representation of women in the Transitional National Assembly.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether gender criteria will be applied to the selection of candidates for the forthcoming Iraqi parliament. [153256]

  Mr. Rammell
  This is a matter for the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC), which is overseeing the drafting of a Transitional Administrative Law (TAL) to include criteria for the selection of candidates to the Transitional National Assembly (TNA). We are encouraging the IGC to use the TAL to promote the fair representation of women in the TNA.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date he first became aware to which Iraqi weapons the 45-minutes claim in the Iraq weapons of mass destruction dossier applied. [154182]

  Mr. Straw
  I first became aware of 'the 45-minute claim' when I read early drafts of the Government's dossier and the Joint Intelligence Committee's assessment dated 9 September 2002. The Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) in their report of 9 September 2003 (CM 5972) published, at paragraph 50, the relevant passage from the assessment. This stated: "Intelligence also indicates that chemical and biological munitions could be with military units and ready for firing within 20–45 minutes." The ISC also commented (para 57): "The JIC did not know precisely which munitions could be deployed from where to where and the context of the intelligence was not included in the JIC Assessment". I became aware that the intelligence behind this assessment referred to battlefield weapons in June 2003.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Nigeria's development of nuclear ballistic missiles. [152852]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government is concerned at reports of Nigerian interest in procuring ballistic missiles and associated technology. We have made our concerns known to the Nigerian Government. With our partners, we continue to work towards halting the proliferation of such weapons and programmes.
  1306W

  North Korea
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to North Korea about human rights. [153071]

  Mr. Rammell
  We are very concerned about reports of serious human rights violations in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) and raise the issue regularly with the DPRK authorities. We encourage DPRK to comply with the recommendations set out in the Resolution adopted at last year's UN Commission on Human Rights. Most recently, Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials raised human rights with DPRK diplomats on 2 February.

  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit North Korea. [153072]

  Mr. Rammell
  Foreign engagements for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers are kept under constant review. It is not practice to announce such visits until they are firm. Because of the unpredictable nature of world events, final decisions on overseas visits are often not possible until very shortly before the day of travel and occasionally not until they are under way.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of North Korea about their(a) ownership and (b) testing of (i) chemical and (ii) biological weapons. [153994]

  Mr. Rammell
  As a State Party to the Biological Weapons Convention, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) is obliged to comply with the ban on developing, testing and stockpiling biological and toxin weapons. DPRK is not a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention, but the EU has recently urged all non-signatories, including DPRK, to accede immediately. We have also recently raised reports of chemical testing on DPRK prisoners with DPRK Embassy officials. We are committed to combating the proliferation of WMD wherever it may occur, and will continue to urge the DPRK to comply with its international obligations.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Pakistan about the recent revelations by Abdul Qadeer Khan on his disclosure of nuclear weapons secrets to Iran, Libya and North Korea. [154375]

  Mr. Rammell
  There has, so far, not been any appropriate opportunity for any detailed discussion of this issue with the Government of Pakistan.

  We welcome assurances given by the President and the Government of Pakistan that Pakistan will not be involved in any proliferation of nuclear weapons technology.
  1307W
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact of the announcement by Abdul Qadeer Khan that he has passed on nuclear weapons technology. [154376]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Government condemns the proliferation of nuclear weapons technology from any source.

  We welcome the fact that this route for the proliferation of nuclear technology suitable for the production of fissile material has been closed off. Government counter-proliferation experts continue to assess the impact of Dr. Khan's announcement.

  Sudan
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make an assessment of the human rights situation in the Sudan. [153993]

  Mr. Mullin
  We monitor closely the human rights situation in Sudan. The application of "Hudud" (amputation) punishments and suppression of freedom of the press are issues that we raise regularly with the government. But we are also particularly concerned by reports of human rights abuses in Darfur, western Sudan, where fighting continues.

  The promotion of human rights through advocacy with the government and support for Non Governmental Organisations remains one of our priorities. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development discussed the human rights situation with the President of Sudan and others during his visit to Khartoum on 10 December 2003.

  Uganda
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the situation in Uganda; what recent representations he has made with regard to(a) the pace of democratisation and the introduction of multi party democracy, (b) the need for a political solution to the war against the Lord's Resistance Army, (c) ending the use of child soldiers, (d) ending the use of illegal detention centres, (e) ending the use of special military tribunals to try civilian opponents of the Government, (f) ending Uganda's role in training and arming militia armies in the Democratic Republic of Congo and the internal tribal militias and (g) bringing State security organisations under parliamentary supervision; and if he will make a statement. [153523]

  Mr. Mullin
  We are encouraging the Government of Uganda to open up political space and look forward to publication of the Constitutional Review Commission's recommendations for political change.

  We regularly urge President Museveni to seek a peaceful solution to the conflict with the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA). We deeply deplore the use of child soldiers by the LRA. We are also concerned at UN reports that the Ugandan army has been recruiting underage soldiers. We have recently raised this issue with senior army commanders.
  1308W
  We are aware of reports of incidences of arbitrary arrest and the lack of due legal process, especially in northern Uganda. We take seriously reports of human rights abuses, including harassment of the opposition and raise our concerns with the Ugandan authorities. The EU regularly raises alleged Government use of detention centres.

  We welcomed Ugandan withdrawal of its remaining troops from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) on 2 June, in compliance with UNSCR 1468 (2003). The UK urges all neighbouring states to support the Transitional National Government and not to interfere in the DRC peace process.

  We and EU partners regularly press the Ugandan Government to ensure due process of law and that state security agencies are subject to the proper scrutiny.

  Ukraine
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Ukraine. [153780]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Ukrainian Foreign Minister called on my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 12 January. During their talks, the Ukrainian Foreign Minister extended an invitation to the Foreign Secretary to visit Ukraine. Foreign engagements for the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers are kept under constant review. It is not practice to announce such visits until they are firm. Because of the unpredictable nature of world events, final decisions on overseas visits are often not possible until very shortly before the day of travel and occasionally not until they are under way.

  I had a useful and productive visit to Ukraine last September, details of which were carried on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website (www.fco.gov.uk).

TRANSPORT

  Anti-terrorist Measures
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures are being taken to improve the screening of freight containers for terrorist material. [152372]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The United Kingdom has a comprehensive security regime in place that it designed to protect the public while minimising the effect on trade and freedom of movement.

  My Department works closely with HM Customs and Excise and others to enhance the existing security provisions relating to freight containers. For obvious reasons, it is not our practice to provide details of these measures. As part of this process the UK has signed up the US Container Security Initiative, whereby intelligence is shared between US and host nation Customs' officials. This operation is running in 19 countries and is proving very effective.

  Our existing national regime will be augmented later this year with the implementation of the International Maritime Organisation's (IMO) global maritime security regime, and within this the UK has identified containerised freight as being an area of specific interest.
  1309W

  BAe 146 Aircraft
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 18 December 2003,Official Report, column 1010W, on BAe 146 aircraft, whether he expects the Air Accident Investigation Branch to publish in February its report of the investigation of a series of cabin air quality incidents involving BAe 146 aircraft and other similar incidents. [153908]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Air Accident Investigation Branch intends to publish its report shortly.

  Central Railway
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a further statement on(a) the Government's policy on the Central Railway project and (b) the timescale for Ministers to consider and decide upon the request by Central Railway plc for the Government to support a hybrid bill. [153144]

  Mr. McNulty
  No timetable has been set. We are considering Central Railway's proposals carefully and will respond in due course.

  M20
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Highways Agency last assessed the skid resistance of the M20 from junctions 3 to 5; and whether the results determined when future resurfacing would take place. [152511]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The skid resistance of the M20 from junctions 3 to 5 was reassessed in 2003 and results indicated that the surfacing meets the skidding resistance standard. This section of the M20 was resurfaced in 1999 with a new thin surface, as part of the Highways Agency's quieter surfacing programme on concrete carriageways. The Highways Agency would expect the surface to have a life in excess of eight years.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what dates Ministers in his Department have held meetings with members and officials of the United States Administration since 1 January 2003; where each meeting was held; which Ministers were involved in each meeting; which United States Administration department attended each meeting; and which members and officials from the United States Administration attended each of these meetings. [152961]

  Mr. McNulty
  Ministers in the Department for Transport have not had any meetings with members and officials of the United States Administration since 1 January 2003.

  Railways
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of train rolling stock leasing expenditure goes to profit. [153114]

  Mr. McNulty
  The contractual terms agreed between the rolling stock leasing companies (ROSCOs) and the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) do not cover profit levels. The reporting of profits is a matter for the ROSCOs themselves.
  1310W
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what representations he has received on(a) financing methods for and (b) the cost of new train rolling stock; [153120]

  (2) what changes he plans to the supervision of the train rolling stock leasing market. [153121]

  Mr. McNulty
  The review of the railway industry announced by the Secretary of State on 19 January is directed specifically at the control of costs and the possibility of structural change. Rolling stock leasing arrangements will be among the issues to be considered as part of the review.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  British Federation of Film Societies
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what funding was received by the British Federation of Film Societies from the UK Film Council in each year from 1997; [152774]

  (2) what the planned funding to the British Federation of Film Societies from the UK Film Council is for each year until 2006; and if she will make a statement. [152775]

  Estelle Morris
  The UK Film Council has awarded the British Federation of Film Societies (BFFS) £100,000 for each of the years 2001–02, 2002–03 and 2003–04. Prior to this, the BFFS received funding from the British Film Institute.

  The UK Film Council has recently completed an extensive consultation on its funding and policy priorities for April 2004 to March 2007. The consultation document, "Three Years On", proposes that the UK Film Council continues to fund the BFFS at £100,000 per annum until 2006–07. The continuation of this funding would be dependent on a year-by-year assessment of the BFFS' performance against agreed performance targets relating to diversity and inclusion.

  Golden Jubilee
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much public money was spent on the Golden Jubilee celebrations. [150389]

  Mr. Caborn
  The provisional figure for the amount of public money spent on the Golden Jubilee celebrations is £14.9 million.

  Licensing Act
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when her Department will issue working guidelines on the implementation of the Licensing Act 2003. [153453]

  Mr. Caborn
  Statutory Guidance is to be issued to licensing authorities under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003. This section requires that a draft of the Guidance must be laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament before it is issued. The statutory Guidance will be laid before Parliament shortly for its approval.
  1311W

  Lotteries
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the rationale was for the decision not to abolish the maximum stake for lotteries. [153018]

  Estelle Morris
  The draft Gambling Bill removes restrictions on the size of stake in society lotteries, subject to the overriding principle that every ticket in the same lottery should cost the same, as recommended by the Gambling Review Body. In 2002 we doubled the legal limits on the size of prizes and on the maximum proceeds in society lotteries. But the draft Bill provides for such limits to remain, since removing them altogether would allow society lotteries to compete head-to-head with the National Lottery, which would potentially reduce both the overall size of prize pools and amounts raised for good causes.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps her Department is taking to bring the regulation of prize competitions into line with that of society lotteries. [153019]

  Estelle Morris
  We announced the outcome of our consultation about the law on prize competitions and lotteries on 5 June 2003. We do not intend that prize competitions should be regulated in the same way as society lotteries. The law must however provide for a clear and enforceable distinction between the two and the draft Gambling Bill that we published in November contains legal tests that should enable this distinction to be made.

  Copies of our statement, of the draft Bill and its accompanying documents are in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Olympic Games Bid
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will discuss with Sport England the use of Rivington in the Chorley constituency for(a) cycling, (b) road racing, (c) mountain biking and (d) individual time trials as part of the 2012 Olympic Games bid. [153854]

  Tessa Jowell
  The bidding company, London 2012, is responsible for selecting the venues for the bid to host the Olympic and Paralympic Games and these were announced on 16 January. They were chosen to best fit the needs of the athletes, the Olympic Sports Federations and the requirements of the International Olympic Committee. Should the bid succeed, sporting facilities across the UK will have the opportunity to be used by national teams for training camps.

  Public Service Broadcasting
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what plans she has to hold meetings with broadcasters to encourage them to provide viewing cards for digital access to public service broadcasting channels; and if she will make a statement; [153322]

  (2) what plans her Department has to monitor the availability of free-to-view channels to satellite customers who do not subscribe to pay-to-view services; and if she will make a statement. [153323]
  1312W
  Estelle Morris
  This is primarily a matter for the broadcasters. Until May last year, the BBC paid for `solus' viewing cards enabling customers who did not wish to pay a subscription to receive the public service broadcasting channels by satellite. However, following the move of its broadcast services to a new satellite, all of the BBC's digital channels are now available via satellite without the need for a viewing card. It has therefore stopped paying for the provision of solus cards.

  Following representations from the Government, an agreement was reached between the other main broadcasters and BSkyB to ensure that existing solus card viewers could continue receiving the other public service channels after their current cards expired in 2003. Viewers were able to purchase a new card, valid until at least 31 December 2005, for a one-off fee of £20 + VAT. This offer was extended until 31 January 2004.

  We understand that the broadcasters have no current plans to provide solus cards to new satellite customers. However, the Government remain committed to ensuring that analogue terrestrial broadcasting signals are maintained until everyone who can currently get the main public service broadcasting channels (BBC1 and 2, ITV1, Channel 4/S4C and Five) can receive them free-to-view via at least one of the digital platforms.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Select Committees
  Jon Trickett
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission what his estimate is of the total amount of staff hours spent in 2003–04 in support of(a) select committees of the House other than the Committee of Public Accounts and (b) the Committee of Public Accounts; what the budget allocated to each is in 2003–04; and if he will make a statement. [153383]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  I refer the hon. Member to Part 10 of the Sessional Return for 2002–03, which was published yesterday as House of Commons Paper 1 of this Session. This gives details of the staff who serve each committee. In addition, the Committee of Public Accounts is supported by the National Audit Office which has a staff of 811 in total. There is no budgetary allocation to individual committees; however, expenditure attributable to each committee appears in the Sessional Return.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Action for Southern Africa
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the decision to reject the funding application from Action for Southern Africa. [153769]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  Action for Southern Africa (ACTSA) was unsuccessful in securing a grant from the Development Awareness Fund last year for the following reasons.
  1313W
  There was no real evidence that there was a demand for the project from the intended beneficiaries.
  The project relied too heavily on DFID funding (80 per cent.) and, at the time, of applying, the remaining 20 per cent. had not been secured from other donors.
  There were concerns that the target audiences were spread too widely and as a consequence, the messages conveyed would lack focus.

  Feedback covering these concerns was given to ACTSA in May 2003 with an invitation to contact the Department with a view to working with them in the future.

  Project title (Contract purpose)

  Country

  Current value1 (£)

  1999

  PR Unit Support For Parastatal Sector Reform Commission (PSRC) (Public Relations Unit)

  Tanzania

  430,625

  1999

  Privatisation Project Phase 3 and 4 Managing Consultant

  Guyana

  1,718,736

  1999

  Privatisation Agency Support Project Consultancy

  Zimbabwe

  560,752

  1999

  Technical Assistance for Public Enterprise Reform in Orissa

  India

  3,667,571

  1999

  Assistance to the Palestinian Negotiations Affairs Department

  West Bank and Gaza

  9,131,555

  1999

  Additional Support to the Privatisation Board

  Bangladesh

  106,241

  1999

  UK-Ireland Privatisation and Regulation Study Tour

  Tanzania

  11,145

  1999

  Medium Term Programme of Capacity Building for PURC (Public Utilities Regulatory Commission)

  Ghana

  1,559,960

  1999

  Initial Support to the Budgetary Processes of the Government of Macedonia

  Macedonia

  44,315

  2000

  Rehabilitation of Cyclone Damaged Lift Irrigation Points in Orissa

  India

  1,296,327

  2000

  Seminar on Export Credits and Developing Countries

  United Kingdom

  102,594

  2000

  Lead Adviser to Parastatal Sector Reform Commission (PSRC)

  Tanzania

  229,966

  2000

  Russia Trade Policy Project (Technical Support)

  Russia

  1,199,986

  2001

  Conference on Disinvestment (Organisation of Conference)

  India

  70,000

  2001

  Support for Public Sector Undertaking Reforms and Social Safety Net in Madhya Pradesh

  India

  80,000

  2001

  PSRC: Water Privatisation and Regulation Study Tour (Parastatal Sector Reform Commission)

  Tanzania

  54,924

  2001

  Communications Film for Department of Disinvestment

  India

  89,500

  2001

  Consultants for Standards, Technical Regulatory Barriers Programme (Problems of access to EU market experienced by developing countries)

  Global (Non Project Specific)

  92,870

  2002

  Trade Training for DFID Staff

  United Kingdom

  20,075

  2002

  Pilot Training and Capacity Building in International Watercourse Law

  Kyrgyz Republic

  151,008

  2002

  Trade Training for DFID Staff-Bangkok

  United Kingdom

  32,328

  2002

  Support for Capacity-Building in the Ministry of Finance and Central Bank

  Afghanistan

  3,277,815

  2003

  Support Services for Public Enterprise Restructuring in South Africa

  South Africa, Republic of

  6,363,435

  2003

  Support to Water Sector Regulation by PURC-Ghana (Public Utilities Regulatory Commission)

  Ghana

  1,079,100

  2003

  Andhra Pradesh Economic Restructuring Programme-Public Enterprise Reforms, Phase II

  India

  416,435

  2003

  Economic Support within 1st Military Division Hq Basra

  Iraq

  55,510

  2003

  Economic Development within 1st Military Division Hq Basra

  Iraq

  119,848

  2003

  Support to the Office of the Prime Minister and to the Cabinet Office, (capacity building support to the Palestinian National Authority)

  West Bank and Gaza

  100,400

  2003

  ITD-DFID Staff Training (International Trade Department)

  Global (Non Project Specific)

  288,685

  2003

  Asia Trade Consultancy (A paper for DFID on the regional trade issues in Asia)

  United Kingdom

  44,200

  2003

  International Lawyer within 1st Military Division Hq Basra

  Iraq

  131,868

  2003

  Economic Support to Coalition Provisional Authority South (CPAS)

  Iraq

  111,255

  2003

  Secondment of Negotiations Support Staff to the Office of Prime Minister

  West Bank and Gaza

  75,800

  2003

  Legal Adviser within Coalition Provisional Authority South (CPAS)

  Iraq

  72,925

  1Original contract value plus cost of any increases or extensions.

  Burundi
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the humanitarian situation in the Kirundo region of Burundi. [153348]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  Months of drought throughout 2003 have affected the 2004 agricultural season especially in the Bugabira and Ntega districts. 29,000 households in Bugabira district and 18,900 households in Ntega district and neighbouring zones of Kirundo are facing this problem. The Food and Agricultural
  1314W

  Adam Smith Institute
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the purposes were of each of the contracts awarded by his Department to the Adam Smith Institute in each of the last four years. [153277]

  Hilary Benn
  The following table sets out the purpose of our contracts with Adam Smith International Ltd. in each of the last four years. All contracts with Adam Smith International Ltd. have been awarded and managed in line with DFID's standard procurement procedures.

  Organisation field crops evaluation report informs us that beans, potatoes and maize have been strongly affected by the prolonged lack of rain. Cassava mosaic disease has affected the cultivation of cassava, one of the main foodstuffs.

  Humanitarian international NGOs and agencies working in the food security sector are looking at the situation. The World Food Programme is organising food distribution in Kirundo from 16 February. The Food and Agricultural Organisation has increased the number of Seeds Protection Rations beneficiaries from 15,000 to 24,000 households, set up the distribution of

  1315W
  potato cuttings and is providing additional support to provincial committees working on local solutions to the cassava mosaic disease.

  Liberia
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress is being made on the demobilisation of child soldiers in Liberia; and if he will make a statement. [153345]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The United Nations estimates that there are approximately 15,000 Children Associated with Fighting Forces (CAFF) to be demobilised in Liberia. Currently, about 190 children have been demobilised and are held in four Interim Care Centres (ICCs), which will allow them to be separated from adult fighters, and where they will receive specialised care and assistance. The ICCs are positioned in Monrovia, Buchanan and Tubmanburg, and are run by Save the Children UK, Don Bosco Homes and Samaritan's Purse International Relief. UNICEF have recently arranged, with UNDP and UNMIL, for children at the ICCs to be formally demobilised and to be registered and issued with their Disarmament, Demobilisation, Rehabilitation and Reintegration (DDRR) numbers. We understand that this exercise will start during the week of 9 February. We have provided £300,000 to UNICEF to establish five Interim Care Centres.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps he is taking to ensure long-term(a) economic stability (b) investment and (c) economic growth in Liberia. [153347]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The conditions for the establishment of long-term economic stability, investment and growth will depend on peace and security, and a successful programme, by the National Transition Government of Liberia (NTGL), of reconstruction. The recent, successful, Liberia Reconstruction Conference showed strong support from the international community for the Results Focussed Transition Framework, agreed by the NTGL and the international community as the basis for an extensive reconstruction programme.

  We have committed £6 million for Disarmament, Demobilisation, Rehabilitation and Reintegration (DDRR); our share of EU programmes in 2003 and 2004 is about £13 million. These amounts are in addition to our contribution to humanitarian programmes of £10.6 million to date.

  Palestinian Christians
  Ann Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what humanitarian efforts are being made to ensure that non-governmental organisations are able to support small Palestinian Christian communities in gaining access to food, water and medical treatment. [153308]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID, and the wider international community, have supported a wide range of initiatives to help meet the urgent needs of Palestinians, as economic and social conditions have seriously deteriorated. Helping maintain access to water, health, and relief services is a vital aspect of this. We and our partners target our support to Palestinians 1316W
  most in need, rather than specific communities. We work closely with a number of partners including the Palestinian Authority and local and international NGOs. Our support for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency also plays a significant role in delivering basic services to refugees in many of the most disadvantaged communities.

  Swaziland
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will break down by aid project the sum which his Department spent bilaterally in Swaziland in 2002–03. [153134]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID is currently supporting two projects in Swaziland through its bilateral programme a rural water supply programme (on which DFID spent £119,000 in 2002–03) and a programme of assistance to the Coalition of Non-Government Organisations (on which DFID spent £101,000 in 2002–03). During 2002–03 DFID also made payments totalling £222,000 on nine other bilateral projects which closed during that year.

  In addition to these payments, the published statistics for DFID support to Swaziland include other items such as payments made to non-government organisations through the Small Grants Scheme and Joint Funding Scheme, and contributions to the Commonwealth Scholarship scheme in respect of Swaziland.

  DFID is also supporting Swaziland through a number of regional initiatives. In particular, we are supporting work on HIV/AIDS, through the International Partnership against AIDS in Africa, and through the Southern African Development Community. Since this support is routed through regional organisations, it does not appear in the statistics for bilateral support to Swaziland.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what plans he has to ensure the continuation of funding for treatment of tuberculosis in all high burden countries under the World Health Organisation DOTS treatment scheme; [151624]

  (2) what plans he has to increase access to the World Health Organisation DOTS scheme; and if he will make a statement; [151625]

  (3) what action he is taking to improve the rates of successful treatment of tuberculosis in high burden countries. [151626]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  Tuberculosis (TB) is a preventable tragedy, yet it kills approximately two million people each year and continues to threaten health, prosperity and social stability. 92 per cent. of cases and deaths occur in low income and lower middle income countries. The World Health Organisation has set TB-control goals for 2005: to detect 70 per cent. of all new infectious TB cases worldwide and to successfully treat 85 per cent. of all cases detected. However, without a dramatic increase in the response, the international community will at best only achieve this target in 2013. Effective control will require concerted action at
  1317W
  international and country levels to increase access to the WHO-recommended DOTS treatment strategy, which combines five elements: political commitment, microscopy services, drug supplies, surveillance and monitoring systems and use of highly efficacious regimes with direct observation of treatment. We work through the World Health Assembly and other channels to ensure that WHO appropriately prioritises the goal of increasing access to medicines for the poorest in line with the internationally agreed Millennium Development Goals.

  DFID is committed to expanding the accessibility of diagnostic and treatment services for TB, particularly to poor communities and to women. The UK is a member of the co-ordinating Board of the global Stop TB partnership, and in 2002–03, we provided £0.99 million to the partnership, which included a contribution to the cost of the important evaluation of the Global TB Drug Facility (GDF).

  We also support the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria as a new mechanism to complement existing initiatives for these diseases, and have pledged US$280 million through to 2008 to the Fund. The Global Fund has already approved grants totalling US$2.1 billion, which will be used to provide direct support to programmes in developing countries, including the treatment of TB in over 40 countries. Additionally, we fund TB Knowledge and Research Programmes at £1.3 million per year.

  To achieve the 2005 targets for DOTS implementation, the international community must address the broader health sector, including human resources for health, primary health care provision, private sector and corporate sector contributions, and working within poverty alleviation strategies. DFID has committed over £1.5 billion since 1997 to support the strengthening of health systems in developing countries.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support the Government gives India to combat tuberculosis. [152973]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  Tuberculosis is a major health issue in India. Around 500,000 people die from TB each year, which disproportionately affects the poor. The Government are supporting the Government of India's programme to improve the provision of tuberculosis treatment services in the state of Andhra Pradesh.

  DFID is providing £20.5 million over five years, to bring about a sustainable improvement in the quality and effectiveness of TB services, ensuring that they are accessible to everyone, especially poor people. DFID funds are used to purchase drugs and microscopes, to train staff, to fund the World Health Organisation in providing technical support, and to improve management systems. The work in Andhra Pradesh, as well as that supported by other donors across India, is contributing to the development of a national policy framework for TB care.

  In addition, at international level the UK has pledged US$280 million through to 2008 to the Global Fund to fight HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria. These funds will be used to provide direct support to programmes in
  1318W
  developing countries, including the treatment of TB. The Global Fund Board has approved proposals for TB programmes in India totalling $38 million.

  The UK is also an active member of the global Stop TB partnership which helps to raise the commitment and resources needed to expand, adapt and improve efforts to control and eliminate TB. In 2002–03 DFID provided £0.75 million to the partnership.

  Zambia
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on cholera levels in Zambia. [153349]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  There have been 3,965 reported cases of cholera, and 196 recorded deaths from cholera in Zambia in 2003–04 so far.

  The Government have responded by establishing treatment centres in affected areas and mobilising drugs and personnel. Cholera awareness campaigns and contact tracing have been initiated and infection control measures stepped up. Other Government ministries have been mobilised. The Zambian armed forces will soon begin deliveries of safe water. Wells are being disinfected and free distribution of chlorine to disinfect water at the household level is planned.

  In 2003, DFID contributed to district health recurrent costs to the sum of £7.5 million, including the funding of epidemic preparedness plans. DFID is currently arranging for the purchase of needed chlorine. Other agencies supporting the response are WHO, UNICEF, Red Cross and MSF.

SCOTLAND

  Scottish Economy
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the prospects for the Scottish economy. [152892]

  Mr. Darling
  The prospects for the Scottish economy are good. There is a growing consensus among business surveys pointing towards a continued strengthening of business activity in Scotland in both services and manufacturing. Furthermore, independent forecasters predict that the Scottish economy will experience above-trend growth in 2004 and 2005.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he had with(a) the Scottish Executive and (b) the Home Office regarding assessment of cannabis street prices in Scotland. [152893]

  Mrs. McGuire
  Scottish Executive ministers keep in regular contact with their UK counterparts to ensure a co-ordinated approach to drugs related issues. Scottish police forces monitor the street prices of drugs across Scotland, which are subject to local variations and fluctuations, as in other parts of the UK.

  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive about the reclassification of cannabis. [152896]
  1319W
  Mrs. McGuire
  The legislation governing the classification of drugs is reserved to the UK Government and is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The Home Office is working closely with the Scottish Executive to ensure a co-ordinated approach to the reclassification of cannabis, which took effect on 29 January.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what issues relating to Scotland will be considered during the Rail Review. [152894]

  Mr. Darling
  Scotland will benefit from the Review looking at all aspects of improving the structure and organisation for Britain's railways. The Review should also look at how we can devolve more decisions on rail to Scotland.

  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with Scottish Ministers regarding rail services in the Edinburgh area. [152895]

  Mr. Darling
  I have regular discussions with Scottish Executive Ministers on transport and my other responsibilities.

  Higher Education
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received from the First Minister on higher education. [152897]

  Mrs. McGuire
  My right hon. Friend has frequent exchanges with the First Minister on a range of issues, including higher education.

  Electoral System
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the voting system used in elections for the Scottish Parliament. [152898]

  Mr. Darling
  I refer my hon. Friend to the announcement I made yesterday (9 February) during Second Reading of the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill on my proposal to establish a commission to review electoral arrangements in Scotland, including whether changes might be required regarding the method of voting in Scottish Parliament elections.

  Population
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received on the projected decline of Scotland's population. [152899]

  Mrs. McGuire
  My right hon. Friend has received no representations on this issue. Matters related to population projections for Scotland are for the Scottish Executive.

  Population projections for Scotland are made by the General Register Office for Scotland, an associated department of the Scottish Executive. 2002-based population projections for Scottish areas are available on its website at www.gro-scotland.gov.uk
  1320W

  Barnett Formula
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the future of the Barnett Formula. [152900]

  Mr. Darling
  No such discussions have taken place. The Government have no plans to replace or to review the Barnett formula. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, confirmed this in reply to an oral question on 13 November 2003,Official Report, columns 401–02.

  Postal Services/Post Offices
  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has held with ministerial colleagues regarding the future of postal services and post offices in Scotland. [152901]

  Mrs. McGuire
  I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues on a wide range of issues, including postal services in Scotland.

DEFENCE

  Apache Helicopters
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much it costs to train a pilot to fly Apache helicopters; and how long the training takes. [153977]

  Mr. Ingram
  The basic Conversion to Type course for qualified Army pilots on the Apache helicopter at the School of Army Aviation, Middle Wallop, is 26 weeks. A current estimate of cost for this course for one pilot (the course has yet to complete) is £600,000. Once qualified, pilots then progress to a Conversion to Role course which will take place at Dishforth and Wattisham, and is run by the Air Manoeuvre Training Advisory Team (AMTAT). This course is of 26 weeks duration and an estimate of cost is £550,000.

  Army Leavers
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many commanding officers have been instructed to offer soldiers due to leave in September the opportunity to leave the Army up to nine months early. [153070]

  Mr. Caplin
  Approximately 270 Commanding Officers have been told that individuals who have already given notice to terminate their engagement before 30 September 2004 may be given the option to leave sooner if this is acceptable both to the individual and their unit. There will be no compulsion on any individual.

  Aviation Noise
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to publish the study into helicopter noise at RAF Shawbury which began in summer 2002, carried out by the Centre of Aviation Medicine. [153954]

  Mr. Ingram
  The study has just been completed and is due to be released on Friday 13 February 2004. I have asked for a copy to be sent to the hon. Member.
  1321W
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to publish the report on military aviation noise conducted by the Directorate of Safety Environment and Fire Policy. [153967]

  Mr. Caplin
  It is planned to publish the report at Easter time.

  Communications
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the reliability of secure satellite communications links available to the UK commanders during Operation Telic; what commercial facilities were utilised; and at what cost. [147275]

  Mr. Ingram
  Secure satellite communications links provided to UK commanders during Operation Telic included both military links through the SKYNET system, and commercial links supporting the Operational Strategic CIS Architecture (OSCA). The overall reliability of secure satellite communications links was high. Some difficulties in maintaining strategic communications links did occur but these did not significantly affect the operational outcome.

  £1.5 million was spent on acquiring the commercial satellite communications hardware for OSCA. A further £9.8 million has been incurred on communications services provided by Cable & Wireless and INMARSAT up to December 2003. The costs attributable to OSCA are included in the overall procurement and running costs for the system totalling £33 million up to December 2003.

  Deaths in Service
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many service personnel who lost their lives accidentally in non-combat situations outside the UK in each year since 1990, are recorded as(a) deaths from road traffic accidents and (b) deaths from other accidents; [149660]

  (2) how many service personnel who lost their lives in combat situations outside the UK in each year since 1990 are recorded as (a) killed in combat, (b) killed in friendly fire or other accidents, (c) self-inflicted deaths and (d) deaths from other causes; [149658]

  (3) how many service personnel who lost their lives in non-combat situations outside the UK in each year since 1990, are recorded as (a) self-inflicted deaths, (b) accidental deaths and (c) deaths from other causes; [149659]

  (4) how many service personnel have lost their lives outside the UK in each year since 1990; and how many of these are recorded as deaths in (a) combat situations and (b) non-combat situations. [149657]

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

  Defence 2004
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the budgeted cost was of the Defence 2004 display 1322W
  scheduled to be held at RAF Fairfield; how many troops were to have been involved; and if he will make a statement on its cancellation. [153013]

  Mr. Caplin
  [holding answer 5 February 2004]The planned expenditure for Defence 2004, which was to have taken place during the Royal International Air Tattoo (RIAT) at RAF Fairford (not Fairfield) in July, was £1.85 million. It would have required approximately 3,300 military personnel for up to a week.

  As I said in my written statement on 30 January 2004, Official Report, column 22WS, the decision to cancel Defence 2004 was taken because of the continued high level of operational commitments and the associated demands upon Service personnel and their families. The Services will, however, continue to fully support RIAT and we will be working closely with the RAF Benevolent Fund Enterprises who organise the event, to help ensure that RIAT continues its tradition of great success.

  Defence Equipment
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) Challenger 2 Main Battle Tanks, (b) Warrior Armoured Personnel Carriers, (c) AS-90s and (d) Multiple Launch Rocket Systems are based in Germany. [153519]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are currently 172 Challenger II Main Battle Tanks, 361 Warrior Vehicles (all variants) and 50 AS90 based in Germany. There are no Multiple Launch Rocket Systems based in Germany at this time.

  Defence Finance
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the planned funding in cash terms is for each of his Department's management groups for financial years 2003–04 to 2006–07; [153024]

  (2) what the planned funding is in cash terms for his Department's executive agencies for financial years 2003–04 to 2006–07. [153022]

  Mr. Ingram
  Since the introduction of Resource Accounting and Budgeting, the Department has required its Management Groupings (including on-vote agencies) to construct their plans on a resource basis, rather than in cash terms. Spending Review 2002 set out the Departmental Expenditure Limit in resource terms for the years 2002–03 to 2005–06. Figures for 2006–7 will be agreed during Spending Review 2005.

  Cash requirements are planned and accounted for at Departmental rather than Management Grouping level and details of the Net Cash Requirement for FY2003/4 can be found in the Central Government Supply Estimates 2003–04 (HC648 Main Supply Estimates and HC15 Winter Supplementary Estimate).

  Departmental Reports and Accounts
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the dates of publication of(a) the annual report and accounts and (b) the corporate plan for his Department's executive agencies were in each year since financial year 1997–98. [153028]
  1323W
  Mr. Caplin
  All Defence Agencies are required to lay their Annual Reports and Accounts before Parliament. The table as follows gives the publication dates for all Defence Agencies for financial year 2002–03. Since 1997–98 a number of Defence Agencies have changed or merged. Detailed publication dates for these previous years are not held centrally in the precise format required and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Further information on all parliamentary business is however published in the House of Commons Votes and Proceedings, available on the United Kingdom

  Date laid before Parliament

  Agency

  (a) Accounts FY2002–03

  (b) Key Targets FY 2003–04

  ABRO

  15 July 2003

  8 July 2003

  Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency

  15 July 2003

  9 April 2003

  Army Personnel Centre

  10 July 2003

  17 July 2003

  Army Training and Recruiting Agency

  16 December 2003

  17 July 2003

  British Forces Post Office

  11 December 2003

  12 June 2003

  Defence Aviation Repair Agency

  17 November 2003

  8 July 2003

  Defence Analytical Services Agency

  16 July 2003

  4 April 2003

  Defence Bills Agency

  11 July 2003

  29 April 2003

  Defence Communications Services Agency

  29 January 2004

  7 November 2003

  Defence Dental Agency

  15 July 2003

  31 March 2003

  Defence Estates

  16 July 2003

  2 July 2003

  Defence Geographic and Imagery Intelligence Agency

  16 December 2003

  6 November 2003

  Defence Housing Executive

  16 July 2003

  2 July 2003

  Defence Intelligence and Security Centre

  31 October 2003

  6 November 2003

  Defence Medical Training Organisation1

  15 July 2003

  231 March 2003

  Defence Procurement Agency

  4 December 2003

  9 July 2003

  Defence Science and Technology Laboratory

  14 July 2003

  16 October 2003

  Defence Secondary Care Agency

  15 July 2003

  n/a

  Defence Storage and Distribution Agency

  15 July 2003

  12 June 2003

  Defence Transport and Movements Agency

  16 July 2003

  12 June 2003

  Defence Vetting Agency

  16 July 2003

  28 April 2003

  Disposal Services Agency

  16 July 2003

  3 July 2003

  Duke of York's Royal Military School

  29 October 2003

  16 July 2003

  Medical Supplies Agency

  16 July 2003

  19 November 2003

  Met Office

  23 June 2003

  11 June 2003

  Ministry of Defence Police

  16 July 2003

  26 June 2003

  Naval Manning Agency

  16 July 2003

  22 May 2003

  Naval Recruiting and Training Agency

  16 July 2003

  4 June 2003

  Pay and Personnel Agency

  16 July 2003

  29 April 2003

  Queen Victoria School

  29 January 2004

  16 July 2003

  RAF Personnel Manning Agency

  16 July 2003

  9 July 2003

  RAF Training Group Defence Agency

  13 November 2003

  17 July 2003

  Service Children's Education

  22 January 2004

  17 July 2003

  UK Hydrographic Office

  10 July 2003

  25 June 2003

  Veterans Agency

  16 July 2003

  28 October 2003

  Warship Support Agency

  10 December 2003

  15 October 2003

  1The Defence Medical Training Organisation and the Defence Secondary Care Agency merged at 1 April 2003 and formed the Defence Medical Education and Training Agency.

  2Refers to key targets for the newly formed Defence Medical Education and Training Agency.

  Dr. David Kelly
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the occasions on which Dr. David Kelly spoke to the media(a) on an authorised basis and (b) on an unauthorised basis while employed by his Department. [152293]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer my hon. Friend to the documents labelled MOD/5/0054 to MOD/5/0060, which are available on the Hutton Inquiry website and which list Dr. Kelly's contacts with journalists over the past two years. This was copied from information supplied by 1324W
  Parliament Website at http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm/cmvote/cmvp0307.htm.

  All Defence Agencies are required to produce key targets annually. These are published in Parliament and then incorporated by agencies into their plans, which are published in a variety of formats and are usually available on agency websites or through the agencies themselves. Dates of publication for individual agency plans in the precise format requested could only be provided at disproportionate cost. Dates of key targets published for financial year 2003–04 are given as follows.

  Dr. Kelly to MOD on 17 July 2003. The Ministry of Defence does not have access to any other records that might have provided further information.

  Evidence relating to unauthorised disclosures to Andrew Gilligan, Susan Watts, Peter Beaumont, Julie Flint, and Gavin Hewitt was heard in the course of Lord Hutton's inquiry.

  Engagements
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what dates since 1 January 2002 Sir Kevin Tebbit held meetings with Mr. Earl Anthony Wayne,
  1325W
  Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs of the United States State Department; and where each meeting took place. [152963]

  Mr. Caplin
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 16 December 2003,Official Report, column 843W.

  Iraq
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provision has been made for personnel to send gifts back to the United Kingdom; what weight limits and costs are involved; and if he will make a statement. [144471]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 17 December 2003]British Armed Forces personnel deployed overseas, with the exception of those in the Gulf, may send parcels home up to a maximum weight of 30 kilograms at a concessionary rate equivalent to United Kingdom second class post. Personnel in the Gulf can currently send parcels of up to two kilograms per item to the UK also at concessionary rates.

  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy was in March 2003 on whether use by Iraq of battlefield chemical and biological weapons would generate the very serious consequences to which he referred in debate on 26 March 2003,Official Report, column 302. [154325]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government's policy is to reserve the right to respond appropriately to any use of such weapons. This was also the policy in March 2003.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost has been to public funds of the British contingent in the Iraq Survey Group; what the projected future costs are; and if he will make a statement. [154282]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Ministry of Defence identifies the costs of Operations in terms of the net additional costs it has incurred. The costs that the Department would have incurred regardless of the operation taking place, such as wages and salaries, are not included. Savings on activities that have not occurred because of the operation—training exercises for example—are taken into account in arriving at the net figures.

  The net additional costs incurred by United Kingdom personnel attached to the Iraq Survey Group cannot be differentiated from the total net additional cost of UK personnel deployed to the Gulf region. For example, stock accounting records will identify the recipient of stock as entitled UK military personnel, not whether they are engaged in peacekeeping work or in the search for WMD. Therefore, it is not possible to identify costs related solely to the UK's Iraq Survey Group personnel.

  Military Equipment (Gulf)
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the performance of military equipment in the Gulf. [142976]
  1326W
  Mr. Hoon
  The Ministry of Defence's report on Operation Telic, "Lessons for the Future", closely reflects the conclusions of the independent report by the National Audit Office that"the logistic effort for the Operation was huge and key to success"
  and that
  "key equipments… performed well".

  Both reports recognise that there are areas for improvement. This includes, in the logistic area, developing a more robust in-theatre asset-tracking system.

  Missile Defence
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much the United Kingdom has spent on all aspects of ballistic missile defence in each year since 1997. [154103]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 19 January 2004,Official Report, column 920W, to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch).

  Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the average number of days a year was in the last five years that the nuclear submarine berths(a) at Loch Ewe and (b) in Broadford Bay were occupied; what change in occupancy is projected; and if he will make a statement. [152753]

  Mr. Ingram
  The berths at Loch Ewe and Broadford Bay can be used by nuclear submarines and surface vessels. Occupancy of the berths by nuclear submarines is recorded in hours. The average number of hours per year over the last five years when the berths have been occupied by nuclear submarines is 13.2 hours for Loch Ewe and 2.4 hours for Broadford Bay. Surface ship occupancy is recorded in days. The average number of days per year over the last five years when the berths have been occupied by surface vessels is 48.6 days for Loch Ewe and nil for Broadford Bay. There are no plans to change the usage pattern.

  Royal College of Defence Medicine
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans the Royal College of Defence Medicine has for the Selly Oak Hospital site in Birmingham. [153884]

  Mr. Caplin
  We are currently considering options for the future provision of accommodation for our medical personnel in Birmingham. Preliminary discussions have taken place with University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust (UHBT), but at present the MOD has no plans for the Selly Oak Site.

  Security Passes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many security passes have been reported by staff in his Department as(a) lost and (b) stolen in the last 12 months. [151520]

  Mr. Caplin
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 28 January 2004,Official Report, column 371W, to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten).
  1327W

  Special Investigations Branch
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who is responsible for responding to reports of the Special Investigations Branch; and what options are available for further action to be taken. [147710]

  Mr. Ingram
  Upon completion of a Special Investigation Branch (SIB) investigation, a report is produced which is passed to the Commanding Officer of the unit involved. The Commanding Officer is then advised by the relevant service legal branch, as to the options available to him, such as whether the matter could be dealt with summarily by the Commanding Officer himself, or a more senior officer in the chain of command, or whether the case should be passed to the relevant service Prosecuting Authority. Service Prosecuting Authorities then decide whether to proceed to Court Martial based on their responsibilities under prosecuting guidelines issued by the Attorney-General.

  In addition, the report produced by the Special Investigation Branch may be used to inform a Board of Inquiry.

  Surplus Military Equipment
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will publish regulations governing the disposal of surplus military equipment; [153004]

  (2) whether surplus military equipment with a security classification of restricted and above is disposed of by sale or auction; and what safeguards are applied; [153005]

  (3) what safeguards there are on the end use of surplus military equipment disposed of by sale or auction. [153006]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are many regulations governing the disposal of surplus military equipments ranging from internal Ministry of Defence procedures focusing on the supply chain decision-making process to those national and international regulations such as the Basel Convention. Particular procedures would be dependent on the type of equipment involved and there are numerous disposal instructions in existence. This information is not held centrally and, without being more specific, could be provided only at disproportionate cost. National and international procedures are in the public domain.

  The MOD ensures that most sensitive surplus military equipment is destroyed. However, certain classified material may be resold by the MOD's Disposal Services Agency (DSA) either directly on a Government-to-Government basis, to the original equipment manufacturer or via some of the DSA's marketing agreements with industry. Safeguards are in place to ensure that all exports (direct or subsequent via a marketing agreement) are covered by an appropriate export licence. The DSA's contractors that hold classified material (for sale) will have appropriate MOD security clearance and, additionally, the Official Secrets Act would apply. No such material would be sold at auction.
  1328W
  All surplus equipment sold directly by the DSA on a Government-to-Government basis contain conditions that require the end user Government to seek MOD approval prior to subsequent resale to a third party.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a) ships, (b) aircraft and (c) military vehicles have been disposed of by (i) sale and (ii) auction in the past six years. [153007]

  Mr. Ingram
  The major former Royal Naval ships (named capital ships) sold by the Ministry of Defence's Disposal Services Agency (DSA) in the last six years are listed as follows. None was sold by auction.

  Financial year1998–99

  HMS Soberton

  HMS Egeria

  HMY Britannia

  Financial year1999–2000

  HMS Kellington

  Financial year 2000–01

  HMS Wilton

  HMS Bicester

  HMS Orkney

  HMS Birmingham

  HMS Beaver

  RFA Olwen

  RFA Olna

  Financial year 2001–02

  HMS Bulldog

  HMS Berkeley

  HMS Orwell

  HMS Herald

  Financial year 2002–03

  HMS Beagle

  HMS London

  HMS Coventry

  HMS Shetland

  HMS Alderney

  HMS Anglesey

  HMS Lindisfarne

  HMS Guernsey

  HMS Sheffield

  Financial year 2003–04

  None

  Surplus aircraft sold by the DSA in the past six calendar years are set out in the following table, broken down by sale and auction.

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Jet Provost

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  5

  Sale

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  5

  Auction

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  0

  Jetstream

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sale

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Auction

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Meteor

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sale

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Auction

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1329W

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Schleicher

  Valiant Glider

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  Sale

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Auction

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  Varsity

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sale

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Auction

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Victor

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sale

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Auction

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Andover

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sale

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Auction

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  BAC 1–11

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Sale

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Auction

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  BAE 146

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Sale

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Auction

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  Buccaneer

  1

  —

  3

  1

  —

  —

  Sale

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Auction

  0

  —

  2

  0

  —

  —

  Bulldog

  —

  6

  28

  73

  —

  —

  Sale

  —

  0

  17

  39

  —

  —

  Auction

  —

  6

  11

  34

  —

  —

  Chipmunk

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Sale

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Auction

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Canberra

  1

  —

  —

  —

  3

  2

  Sale

  0

  —

  —

  —

  3

  2

  Auction

  1

  —

  —

  —

  0

  0

  Chieftan

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sale

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Auction

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Devon

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sale

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Auction

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gnat

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Sale

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Auction

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  HS 125

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Sale

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Auction

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Harrier

  2

  6

  —

  2

  11

  2

  Sale

  2

  6

  —

  2

  11

  2

  Auction

  0

  0

  —

  0

  0

  0

  Hunter

  2

  2

  7

  —

  1

  —

  Sale

  1

  2

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Auction

  1

  0

  6

  —

  0

  —

  Jaguar

  4

  —

  —

  3

  2

  —

  Sale

  3

  —

  —

  3

  2

  —

  Auction

  1

  —

  —

  0

  0

  —

  Schempp-Hirth Janus-C

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Sale

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Auction

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Javelin

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sale

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Auction

  l

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1330W

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Gazelle

  4

  2

  8

  20

  4

  12

  Sale

  2

  2

  4

  10

  4

  12

  Auction

  2

  0

  4

  10

  0

  0

  Lynx Helicopters

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Sale

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Auction

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  Sioux Helicopters

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sale

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Auction

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wessex Helicopters

  14

  2

  4

  3

  6

  7

  Sale

  7

  2

  2

  2

  6

  7

  Auction

  7

  0

  2

  1

  0

  0

  Whirlwind

  1

  1

  2

  —

  —

  2

  Sale

  1

  1

  2

  —

  —

  2

  Auction

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  0

  VC10

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Sale

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Auction

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  0

  Lightning

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sale

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Auction

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shackleton

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sale

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Auction

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tornado

  —

  1

  2

  7

  15

  4

  Sale

  —

  1

  2

  7

  15

  4

  Auction

  —

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Puma

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Sale

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Auction

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Hercules

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  Sale

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  Auction

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  0

  Sea King

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Sale

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Auction

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  Viking Glider

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Sale

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Auction

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  Phantom

  4

  —

  6

  10

  —

  —

  Sale

  4

  —

  6

  10

  —

  —

  Auction

  0

  —

  0

  0

  —

  —

  Merlin

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sale

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Auction

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  As there were approximately 23,000 surplus military vehicles sold in the last six years, itemised sales figures could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Trident
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost, in real terms, of the Trident submarine fleet, including missiles and warheads, for each year since its initial deployment; and what the overall cost was of acquiring(a) the submarines and (b) the missiles and warheads. [154106]
  1331W
  Mr. Hoon
  The cost, in real terms. of the Trident submarine fleet, including missiles and warheads, for each year since its initial deployment has ranged between 2 per cent. and 4 per cent. of the annual defence budget.

  The overall cost of acquiring (a) the submarines is £5,481 billion and (b) the missiles and warheads is £3,727 billion.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

  Pre-legislative Scrutiny
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Leader of the House if he will make an assessment of the effect of scrutiny of draft Bills on the quality of legislation. [153634]

  Mr. Hain
  I am convinced that the scrutiny of draft Bills leads to better legislation, but it would be difficult to find objective measures by which to assess the quality of legislation and the changes made following pre-legislative scrutiny.

  Gunpowder Plot
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Leader of the House what plans he has made for the House to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the Gunpowder Plot. [153635]

  Mr. Hain
  A group of officials from both Houses are developing a proposal for an exhibition concerning the Gunpowder Plot to be held in Westminster Hall during 2005. It is hoped that the proposal will be put to the House of Commons Commission, and to the Westminster Hall authorities, in March.

  Modernisation Committee
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Leader of the House if he will propose to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons that it examine ways of simplifying House documents. [153637]

  Mr. Hain
  I am aware that many Members find the form of some House documents inaccessible and I believe there is scope for further modernisation. The Modernisation Committee is considering the accessibility of the House's publications in its current inquiry on Parliament's engagement with the public, and may wish to return to the subject in the future.

  Standing Committees
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Leader of the House if he will reduce the number of Standing Committees in which Government Bills have precedence. [153638]

  Mr. Hain
  I have no plans to propose such a change to the Standing Orders.

  When circumstances require it, the Government gives precedence to a Private Member's Bill in a Standing Committee where Government Bills are entitled to precedence.
  1332W

  Remembrance Wreaths
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Leader of the House whether the cost of poppy wreaths laid by hon. Members on Remembrance Sunday is an allowable expense against the incidental expenses provision. [153351]

  Mr. Hain
  No, but if the hon. Member wishes, it is open to him to make representations to the Advisory Panel on Members' Allowances, who advise on detailed rules for the incidental expenses provision and other allowances.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Witnesses
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what measures the Government have taken to encourage and support victims and witnesses of crimes to give evidence in court. [153656]

  Mr. Leslie
  Last July. the Government published a National Strategy setting out steps we are taking to deliver improved services to victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system. At its heart is the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill, introduced last November, which contains a range of measures aimed at encouraging more witnesses to come to court and give evidence.

  Supreme Court
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will make a statement on the locations being considered for a new supreme court. [153658]

  Mr. Leslie
  A wide range of options for the location of the new Supreme Court is being considered, both commercial sites and those already on the Government estate. An evaluation is currently being conducted to identify the preferred building solution. Until this process has been completed, it could be prejudicial to our commercial position to disclose details.

  Industrial Action
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent industrial action within the Department. [153659]

  Mr. Lammy
  Members of the PCS union in the DCA were called out on strike on 29 and 30 January. The Department had contingency plans in place, and this ensured that the impact on overall levels of service was minimised.

  Community Legal Service
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what steps are being taken to develop the Community Legal Service. [153660]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Legal Services Commission, on behalf of my Department, is examining new ways of delivering services through the Partnership Initiative
  1333W
  Budget and Methods of Delivery Pilots. These programmes will increase access to provision of legal and advice services for those most in need. An independent review is taking place to evaluate the impact of the CLS after three years of live operation. The report is due by 31 March 2004. Informed by the report's recommendations, Ministers will then decide how to build on the success of the CLS since its introduction.

  John Mann
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the current backlog of cases is in the Community Legal Service. [153357]

  Mr. Lammy
  I take the 'backlog of cases' to mean the applications for civil representation received by the Legal Services Commission but not yet processed. The figures as at 30 January 2004 were as follows:

  Family applications: 2,667

  Non-Family applications: 584

  Civil amendments/authorities applications: 2,313

  Emergency applications: 346

  For comparison purposes, the average number of applications received per week is currently as follows:

  Family applications: 2,133

  Non-Family applications: 522

  Civil amendments/authorities applications: 3,210

  Emergency applications: 989

  Anti-social Behaviour Orders
  Claire Ward
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what training and guidance the Lord Chancellor is giving to magistrates on the implementation of Anti-social Behaviour Orders. [153661]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Judicial Studies Board (JSB) issued a set of magistrates' training materials addressing the original anti-social behaviour provisions in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The training materials were revised and reissued in November 2002 and again in May 2003.

  Fines (East Sussex)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will make a statement on the collection of fines imposed by magistrates' courts. [153665]

  Mr. Leslie
  Following the action plan I announced last June to improve fine enforcement performance, clear progress has been made and MCCs are on track to hit the 75 per cent. payment rate target set for this year.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, what percentage of fines handed down by courts in East Sussex were collected in the last year for which figures are available. [153480]

  Mr. Leslie
  Information on fines imposed and collected is provided by the 42 magistrates courts committees (MCCs) in England and Wales. Separate data of fines handed down by courts in East Sussex are not available.
  1334W
  As set out in the report "Magistrates' Courts Business Returns, Annual Report 2002–2003" published on 25 June 2003, Sussex Magistrates Courts Committee's payment rate was 62 per cent.—£3,958,078 was collected from a total of £6,402,558 for enforcement in Sussex.

  Charitable Trusts
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs for what reason individual trustees have to disclose their date of birth when making the annual return to the Charity Commission. [154374]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  I have been asked to reply.

  This is a matter for the Charity Commission as the Government Department responsible for the regulation of charities in England and Wales. The Chief Charity Commissioner will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  Electoral Law
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will make a statement on the procedure for declaration of donations by independent candidates in elections. [153657]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000 established a new system for governing the regular disclosure of donations to registered political parties, a system which did not extend to independent candidates as—by definition—they have no organised party base behind them. Nevertheless, all individuals are required separately by the Representation of the People Act 1983 to record election expenses and campaign income received from the moment they officially become election candidates, whether party nominees or independents. Donations of more than 50 have to be reported in these election expenses returns to Returning Officers.

  Law Commission Reports
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs when the Government will respond to(a) the Law Commission report on limitation of actions, ref. (2001) Law Com No. 270, (b) the consultation issued in September 2002 on the Law Commission report on third party rights against insurers, ref. Law Com No. 272, (c) claims for wrongful deaths, ref. (1999) Law Com No. 263 and (d) liability for psychiatric injury ref. (1998) Law Com No. 249. [153415]

  Mr. Lammy
  The information is as follows:

  (a)In July 2002, the Government announced their acceptance in principle of the recommendations for reform of the 1980 Act contained in the Law Commission report "Limitation of Actions", subject to further consideration of certain aspects. Legislation will be introduced to implement those recommendations which are accepted when an opportunity arises.

  (b) The Government will publish the post-consultation report on Third Parties—Rights Against Insurers this month.
  1335W
  (c) and (d) The Government are currently considering the proposals in the Law Commission reports on damages in light of developments since their publication, with a view to consulting further as appropriate.

  Legal Aid
  John Mann
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the current(a) method and (b) level of funding for legal aid; and if he will make a statement. [153353]

  Mr. Lammy
  My Department and the Legal Services Commission are continually reviewing the methods and levels of funding for legal aid, to ensure that those who need help the most continue to receive help while providing the best value for money for the taxpayer. In addition, my Department formally announced in June a review of supply, demand and purchasing arrangements within the legal aid system. Due to concern that there could be a shortage of high quality legal aid lawyers, the review will establish the costs, fees and conditions necessary to attract and maintain well-qualified legal aid lawyers. The report by the consultants conducting the review was received in December 2003. It addressed alternative procurement methods for legal services. The final report is about to be published.

  John Mann
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many people used legal aid in the last year for which figures are available. [153355]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Legal Services Commission is unable to answer the question in the form requested as its systems record the number of acts of assistance rather than the number of clients assisted, which is not necessarily reflective of the number of individuals involved. The total acts of assistance for 2002–03 was 2,658,000.

  John Mann
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what percentage of the legal aid budget in 2003–04 has been spent on criminal cases. [153356]

  Mr. Lammy
  In the present financial year 2003–04, to December 2003, legal aid expenditure on criminal cases amounted to 56 per cent. of total legal aid expenditure.

  Legal Services
  John Mann
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what assessment he has made of the effect of enabling providers other than solicitors to offer legal services directly to the public. [153358]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Government have commissioned an independent review of the regulation of legal services aimed at promoting competition and innovation and improving services for consumers. We are reviewing future demand for legal services and the suppliers needed particularly in the publicly funded sector. We have already decided to open up the probate market to new providers, which should enable consumers to benefit from better and more cost effective services. A1336W
  full regulatory impact assessment of opening up the probate market will be provided when commencement orders are laid before Parliament.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefits
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the impact of general practitioner fees on deterring those on low incomes from appealing against a benefits decision; and if he will make a statement. [153376]

  Maria Eagle
  General Practitioners (GPs) have an important role in providing advice on fitness for work, and supporting the recovery and rehabilitation of their patients; however, there is no need for a person to have evidence from their GP in order to appeal a benefit decision, and GPs are under no statutory obligation to provide medical evidence to their patients for the purposes of an appeal.

  Appeal tribunals carry out an independent judicial function and will have available the medical evidence on a person's file, including the reports from Medical Services' doctors; in many cases a person's file will often already include factual information provided by their GP.

  Carer's Allowance
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in(a) the East Midlands and (b) England and Wales receive carer's allowance. [152809]

  Maria Eagle
  The information requested is in the following table.

  Pensioners in receipt of Carers Allowance, at 31 August 2003

  In payment

  East Midlands

  1,590

  England

  18,360

  Wales

  1,400

  Notes:

  1. Figures taken from a 100 per cent. sample at 31 August 2003.

  2. Pensioners are defined as those aged 60/65 + at 31 August 2003.

  3. Figures have been given for all people with Carers Allowance in payment.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many appeals against refusal of Disability Living Allowance have been considered by the Appeals Service in each of the last 12 months in(a) the Angus constituency, (b) Scotland and (c) the rest of the United Kingdom; [152570]

  (2) how many successful appeals there have been against refusal of Disability Living Allowance in each of the last 12 months in (a) the Angus constituency, (b) Scotland and (c) the rest of the UK. [152571]
  1337W
  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 Mr. Michael Weir, dated 10 February 2004:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions regarding:
  1) the number of appeals against the refusal of disability living allowance that have been considered by the Appeals Service in each of the last 12 months in (a) the Angus constituency, (b) Scotland and (c) the rest of the United Kingdom

  Disability Living Allowance Appeals lodged and received by the Appeals Service: January 2003 to December 2003, by month

  Scotland1

  Total DLA claimants: 2003

  Lodged

  Received

  Cleared at hearing

  Cleared in favour of appellant

  Percentage cleared in favour of appellant

  Year 2003

  12,565

  13,900

  11,805

  6,720

  56.9

  January 2003

  1,040

  1,125

  1,075

  630

  58.6

  February 2003

  273,700

  1,190

  1,020

  1,015

  585

  57.6

  March 2003

  1,165

  1,205

  940

  575

  61.2

  April 2003

  1,065

  1,020

  995

  570

  57.3

  May 2003

  277,700

  1,140

  970

  960

  570

  59.4

  June 2003

  1,250

  1,150

  1,080

  625

  57.9

  July 2003

  1,190

  1,015

  930

  540

  58.1

  August 2003

  281,200

  1,220

  1,180

  885

  470

  53.1

  September 2003

  1,265

  1,270

  935

  500

  53.5

  October 2003

  1,255

  1,485

  1,085

  590

  54.4

  November 2003

  715

  1,230

  1,095

  610

  55.7

  December 2003

  70

  1,230

  810

  455

  56.2

  1 Scotland figures are those of the regional centre —Glasgow

  Great Britain1

  Total DLA claimants: 2003

  Lodged

  Received

  Cleared at hearing

  Cleared in favour of appellant

  Percentage cleared in favour of appellant

  Year 2003

  74,775

  83,505

  69,880

  36,850

  52.7

  January 2003

  6,510

  7,795

  6,050

  3,160

  52.2

  February 2003

  2,468,900

  7,400

  6,595

  5,615

  3,015

  53.7

  March 2003

  6,970

  7,215

  6,390

  3,570

  55.9

  April 2003

  6,445

  6,040

  5,665

  3,060

  54.0

  May 2003

  2,497,600

  6,275

  5,905

  6,035

  3,205

  53.1

  June 2003

  7,125

  6,390

  6,030

  3,300

  54.7

  July 2003

  7,660

  7,015

  5,890

  3,170

  53.8

  August 2003

  2,527,700

  6,925

  6,105

  5,480

  2,855

  52.1

  September 2003

  7,415

  7,660

  5,915

  3,050

  51.6

  October 2003

  7,250

  8,720

  6,130

  3,100

  50.6

  November 2003

  4,155

  7,175

  5,895

  2,965

  50.3

  December 2003

  645

  6,890

  4,785

  2,400

  50.2

  1 The "Great Britain" figure will include a small number of cases from outside Great Britain. The Appeals Service hears appeals for Great Britain, not the United Kingdom.

  Notes:

  1. All figures are subject to change as more up to date data becomes available.

  2. Figures for the latest months may rise significantly as information feeds through to the Appeals Service.

  3. Figures are rounded to the nearest five, except for total DLA claimants (2003), which are rounded to the nearest hundred, and are only available quarterly.

  4. The information for Angus parliamentary constituency is not available.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, 100 per cent. sample.

  Hepatitis C
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he plans to propose legislation to prevent people eligible for compensation under the ex-gratia hepatitis C payment scheme losing their social security benefits. [152525]
  1338W
  2) the number of successful appeals there have been against the refusal of disability living allowance in each of the last 12 months in (a) the Angus constituency, (b) Scotland and (c) the rest of the United Kingdom.

  The information is not available in the requested format. However such information as is available is attached in two tables. The first table shows disability living allowance appeals lodged, received, cleared at hearing and cleared in favour of the appellant in Scotland; the second table gives the same figures for Great Britain.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Mr. Pond
  [holding answer 3 February 2004]Amendments to existing regulations are being prepared to ensure that any payments received under the Hepatitis C Ex-Gratia Payment Scheme are disregarded for the purposes of Income Support, income-based Jobseeker's Allowance, Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit and Pension Credit. Proposals for the Housing
  1339W
  Benefit and Council Tax Benefit regulations were sent to the Local Authority Associations for consultation on 23 January. The regulations will be laid before Parliament once all necessary procedures have been completed, and an announcement will be made in due course.

  Logic Software
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) when the new Logic Integrated Medical Assessment software will be made available for public access; and if he will make a statement; [153434]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the capability of the Logic Integrated Medical Assessment software to assess claimants whose condition is variously assessed as physical, mental or both in origin according to different authorities; [153436]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the capability of the Logic Integrated Medical Assessment software to assess claimants with symptoms which differ widely from the accepted definition of the client's condition; [153437]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the implications of tying the Personal Capability Assessment into the Logic Integrated Medical Assessment software for which SchlumbergerSema own the copyright; what assessment he has made of the impact on the contract renewal process in 2005; and if he will make a statement. [153438]

  Maria Eagle
  The Logic Integrated Medical Assessment (LiMA) software, developed by Medical Services, supports doctors who have been trained and approved to carry out Incapacity Benefit Personal Capability Assessments. It is based on fully researched, evidence-based medical protocols providing reliable, up to date medical opinion on the conditions most often seen in people claiming Incapacity Benefit. LiMA guides the doctor through the medical assessment process, prompting appropriate questions and ensuring thorough and appropriate assessment of the customer's physical and/or mental conditions.

  LiMA analyses data about the individual customer, which the doctor has input following interview, observation, and focused clinical examination; and presents the doctor with a logical choice of descriptors that are consistent with the data and with up to date medical knowledge. Doctors can use clinical judgement to override the descriptor choices suggested by LiMA, but they must provide full justification for doing so.

  The LiMA software is only functional as an interactive process during a medical examination for the Personal Capability Assessment. It cannot be used independently of the process, and is therefore not accessible to the public. As an internal guidance system it does not fall within Open Government guidelines on access to information.

  The medical protocols that support LiMA are drawn from standard medical texts available through any public library.
  1340W
  SchlumbergerSema (now Atos Origin) do not own the copyright of the LiMA software. The current Medical Services contract provides that Intellectual Property Rights for Evidence Based Medicine and the LiMA software are vested in the Department.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of claimants have been found incapable of work under the Logic Integrated Medical Assessment (LIMA) software since the pilots were introduced; what proportion of claimants were found incapable of work without the use of the LIMA software in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [153435]

  Maria Eagle
  The information is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  New Deal for Young People
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have entered the New Deal for Young People(a) four times, (b) five times, (c) six times, (d) seven times, (e) eight times, (f) nine times and (g) 10 times or more; whether these people are included in the long-term unemployed statistics; and if he will make a statement. [152668]

  Mr. Browne
  The information is in the table.

  New Deal for Young People (NDYP)—Number of people who have entered the programme. four times and more

  Number of times on the programme

  Number of people

  Four

  5,680

  Five

  400

  Six

  20

  Notes:

  1. There are no recorded instances of people participating in NDYP more than six times.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Source:

  DWP Information and Analysis Directorate

  People on the New Deal for Young People (NDYP) Gateway receive Jobseekers Allowance (JSA) and, unless they have joined under the early entry criteria, will be counted in the claimant unemployment statistics as in receipt of JSA for six months or more. People on one of the four NDYP options are undertaking full-time activity designed to address their barriers to work and receive a New Deal allowance rather than JSA. People participating in NDYP follow-through receive JSA and will, in most cases, be counted in the claimant statistics as in receipt of JSA for up to six months.

  Unemployment statistics are also collected through the Labour Force Survey (LFS). People on NDYP Gateway and follow-through will be classified as International Labour Organisation (ILO) unemployed if they satisfy the ILO conditions of being available for and actively seeking work. Those on NDYP options may be counted as in employment, ILO unemployed, or economically inactive depending on their labour market activity. The duration of those counted as ILO unemployed reflects a person's own assessment of their period of unemployment.
  1341W
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many participants on the New Deal for Young People full-time education or training option were on courses lasting(a)0–3 months, (b) 3–6 months, (c) 6–12 months and (d) over 12 months, in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [152669]

  Mr. Browne
  Information on the length of courses undertaken by young people on the New Deal full-time education and training option is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Information on the number of people participating on the New Deal for young people full-time education and training option in the 12 months to September 20031, and the duration of time spent on that option, is in the table.

  1Latest available figures.

  New deal for young people full time education and training option

  Duration on the option (months)

  Number of people

  0–3

  7,940

  3–6

  10,590

  6–12

  5,040

  12+

  190

  Note:

  It is the policy of New Deal for young people (NDYP) that nobody should be placed on an NDYP full time education and training (FTET) course for longer than a year, and an individual's training on this option is not funded for longer than 12 months.

  In a small number of cases, people may leave their FTET option early, return to claim jobseekers allowance within 13 weeks, and then complete this option. This can result in some individuals appearing to be on the FTET option for longer than 12 months, even though their time on the option would be a maximum of 12months.

  Source:

  DWP Information and Analysis Directorate.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what progress has been made in co-ordination with HM Inland Revenue to track whether leavers from New Deal programmes remain in employment 12 months after leaving; and if he will make a statement. [153458]

  Mr. Browne
  We announced the launch of the Work and Pensions Longitudinal Study on the 16 December. The study will link benefit and programme information held by this Department with employment records from the Inland Revenue and will be used to evaluate the Department's policies for helping people into work and keeping them in work.

  The Study will improve our understanding of what happens to people who leave our benefits and programmes, including the New Deal, to enter employment, and will enable us to assess how long they remain in employment.

  The Study is now under way and first publication of figures is expected at the end of the year.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average cost per place on each of the four options in the New Deal for Young People was in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [147818]
  1342W
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when Jobcentre Plus expects to complete its New Deal for Young People unit cost model. [147930]

  Mr. Browne
  The information is not available.

  At the time of my previous answer to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) on 17 July 2003, Official Report, column 551W, it was anticipated that a unit costing system would now be available to produce reliable cost information on the full range of Jobcentre Plus activities, including information about the cost per place of New Deal for Young People. However, delays in developing the Resource Management System, which included a suite of unit costing systems, mean that at this time we are still unable to carry out this level of detailed costing analysis for Jobcentre Plus and other business units within the Department. A less sophisticated model, which records cost at a less detailed level, is close to completion and is planned to be operational from April 2004.

  New Deal for Young People has now successfully helped more than 460,000 young people into jobs and continues to represent value for money to the taxpayer.

  Public Bodies
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) who the members of the(a) Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions, (b) Chaseley Trust, (c) Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board, (d) Far East (Prisoner of War and Internees) Fund and (e) Industrial Injuries Advisory Council were on 1 January; what their term of office is in each case; and what their remuneration is; [151357]

  (2) who the members of the (a) Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority, (b) Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, (c) Social Security Advisory Committee and (d) War Pensions Committee were on 1 January; what their term of office is in each case; and what their remuneration is. [151363]

  Maria Eagle
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  The Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions, Chaseley Trust, Far East (Prisoner of War and Internees) Fund, Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation and War Pensions Committees fall under the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. Information on these bodies has also been placed in the Library.

  Staff Salaries
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the(a) lowest, (b) highest and (c) average salary is for full-time members of staff in (i) his Department, (ii) Jobcentre Plus, (iii) the Child Support Agency, (iv) the Pension Service, (v) the Disability and Carers Service and (vi) the Appeals Service. [151446]
  1343W
  Maria Eagle
  The information is in the following table:

  Lowest, highest and average salaries in DWP, 2003

  £

  DWP Business

  Lowest

  Highest

  Average

  DWP Corporate Centre

  9,900

  124,800

  23,549

  Jobcentre Plus

  9,900

  124,800

  19,047

  Child Support Agency

  9,900

  124,800

  16,871

  The Pension Service

  9,900

  124,800

  17,427

  Disability and Carers Service

  9,900

  124,800

  17,363

  The Appeals Service

  9,900

  124,800

  17,734

  DWP overall

  9,900

  124,800

  18,890

  Notes:

  1. The lowest salary is the minimum of the Band A (Administrative Assistant) national pay scale on 30 June 2003,before implementation of the proposed 2003 pay award. The highest is the maximum current Senior Civil Service (SCS) salary in DWP as a whole—including the highest in each Business may identify individuals' salaries. They are basic rates and exclude allowances, bonus payments and pension contributions.

  Staff numbers and salary bands in DWP 2003

  DWP Corporate Centre staff

  Jobcentre Plus staff

  Child Support Agency staff

  The Pensions Service staff

  Clerical support

  4,806

  46,152

  7,262

  13,031

  Management

  5,594

  33,673

  3,307

  6,136

  Senior management

  631

  525

  82

  126

  Senior civil service

  135

  54

  13

  23

  Total

  11,166

  80,404

  10,664

  19,316

  Disability and Carers Service staff

  Appeals Service staff

  DWP staff

  Minimum salary (£)

  Maximum salary (£)

  Clerical support

  4,331

  622

  76,204

  9,900

  18,550

  Management

  2,538

  217

  51,465

  15,220

  34,870

  Senior management

  31

  12

  1,407

  32,210

  60,990

  Senior civil service

  1

  2

  228

  52,403

  124,800

  Total

  6,901

  853

  129,304

  —

  —

  Notes:

  1. Clerical support covers staff employed in Band A/Administrative Assistant, Typist, Personal Secretary, Band B/Administrative Officer, Typing Manager and Senior Personal Secretary.

  2. Management covers staff employed in Band C/Executive Officers, Band D/Higher Executive Officers, Chief Typing Managers, Social Fund Inspectors and Band E/Senior Executive Officers.

  3. Senior Management covers staff employed in Band F/Grade 7 and Band G/Grade6.

  4. Specialist staff e.g. accountants, lawyers, statisticians and support grades who do not fit within the broad descriptions have been excluded from the above data. Permanent Secretaries have also been excluded.

  5. All staff numbers are Whole Time Equivalents.

  6. Band minimum and band maximum for staff below SCS are 2002 rates. The 2003 pay settlement has not yet been finalised or fully implemented. For staff below SCS the minimum is the rate for the national payband and the maximum is the rate for the Inner London payband.

  Source:

  DWP Payroll Systems (Dataview December 2003)

PRIME MINISTER

  Honours System
  Mr. Mackay
  To ask the Prime Minister when firm proposals for the reform of the honours system will be laid before Parliament. [153664]

  The Prime Minister
  I expect to receive Sir Hayden Phillips' report on his review of the honours system within the next few months. I shall, at the appropriate time, make a statement to Parliament about it.

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of the intelligence document
  1344W
  2. The average salaries are for staff in grades Band A (AA) to Band G (Grade 6) before implementation of the proposed 2003 pay award, and current SCS salaries. Average salaries include allowances such as recruitment and retention allowance and the employer's occupational pension contribution, but exclude overtime. Data on Permanent Secretaries have been excluded from the table.

  3. The figures above encompass all pay zones (national, inner and outer London, and specified locations).

  Source:

  DWP Payroll Systems (FAMIS and Rebus) as processed by DWP Financial Services (ASAP), October 2003.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the salary bands for full-time members of staff who are on(a) clerical support, (b) management, (c) senior management and (d) senior civil service grades in his Department and each of its agencies; and how many staff are employed in each of those bands. [151447]

  Maria Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  on which he based his conclusion, placed before the Hutton Inquiry by his former director of communications, that Iraq could produce a nuclear weapon in between one and two years; [152532]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 2 February, Official Report, column 729, what the original intelligence to which he refers was that the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee relied upon in respect of his acceptance of the proposals made in his e-mail of 19 September 2002; and whether he had been informed of the contents of this intelligence when he authorised his former director of communications to press for changes in the Iraq weapons of mass destruction dossier. [153918]

  The Prime Minister
  The conclusions on the dossier were those of the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) as
  1345W
  both Lord Hutton and the Intelligence and Security Committee have made clear. As Lord Hutton makes clear,
  "Mr. John Scarlett, the Chairman of the JIC, had the overall responsibility for the drafting of the dossier".

  It has been the practice of successive Governments not to publish intelligence material.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what response he made to the queries posed by the right hon. Member for Dewsbury in her comments on the draft Iraq weapons of mass destruction dossier in September 2002; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [153929]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) on 18 September 2003,Official Report, column 870W and on 15 October 2003, Official Report, columns 233–34W.

  As Lord Hutton found in his report
  "the dossier was prepared and drafted by a small team of the assessment staff of the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC). Mr. John Scarlett, the Chairman of the JIC, had the overall responsibility for the drafting of the dossier. The dossier, which included the 45 minutes claim, was issued by the Government on 24 September 2002 with the full approval of the JIC".

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what the source was of the 45–minute claim about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction; and whether this intelligence information was shared with allied intelligence services, including those of the United States, between its receipt by the United Kingdom and its use in the Iraq weapons of mass destruction dossier. [153980]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 18 September 2003,Official Report, columns 952–53W.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he was informed of the e-mail by Mr. Jonathan Powell, published on page 657 of Lord Hutton's Report, on the evidence of an imminent threat from Iraq contained in the Draft Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction Dossier, dated 17 September 2002, before he authorised the publication of the final version of the dossier. [153996]

  The Prime Minister
  No. As Lord Hutton said in his Report, the Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) had overall responsibility for the dossier of 24 September and accepted only drafting suggestions which were consistent with the intelligence known to the JIC.

  Lembit ÖOpik
  To ask the Prime Minister whether(a) the Secretary of State for Defence and (b) other Ministers informed him (i) orally and (ii) in writing that they believed the weapons of mass destruction which could be deployed within 45 minutes were battlefield weapons; [154082]

  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his oral answer of 4 February 2004,Official Report, column 772, when he indicated when it had come to his attention that the 45 minute assertion related to battlefield mortar shells or small calibre weaponry; [154017]
  1346W
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Prime Minister on what date he first became aware to which Iraqi weapons the 45–minutes claim in the Iraq's weapons of mass destruction dossier applied. [154181]

  The Prime Minister
  No. As my Official Spokesman said on Thursday 5 February, I first became aware of this around the time that the Intelligence and Security Committee had been examining the issue.

  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Prime Minister whether the Iraqi regime was warned(a) before and (b) during the recent conflict that any use of battlefield chemical and biological weapons would meet with a response using (i) weapons of mass destruction and (ii) nuclear weapons. [154252]

  The Prime Minister
  No. The Government have made clear in the past that we reserve the right to respond appropriately to any use of such weapons, using the range of options available to us. The UK does not possess biological or chemical weapons. We would never use our nuclear weapons in a manner contrary to international law.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence gave to the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) on 3 March 2003, Official Report, column 578.

  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he was informed of the possible range of battlefield weapons of mass destruction; and what types of armament he understood to be defined as battlefield weapons. [154253]

  The Prime Minister
  Yes. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) on 15 September 2003,Official Report, column 515W.

TREASURY

  Atrazine
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what quantities of Atrazine have been imported through each British port in the last 12 months. [153909]

  John Healey
  Atrazine is classified in commodity code 29336910, which is a set of related chemicals. The full description for this group is: Atrazine(ISO); propazine (ISO); hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1.3,5-triazine (hexogen, trimethylenetrinitramine).

  Imports of goods under this commodity code from non-EU countries through British ports in the last 12 months, for which figures are available are shown in the following table.

  Imports, December 2002 to November 2003

  Port

  Net mass (kgs)

  Liverpool

  2,093

  Felixstowe

  40,000

  Total

  42,093

  Source:

  Overseas Trade Statistics, HMCE
  1347W

  Benefit and Tax Errors
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on incompatibilities between working tax credit and council tax benefits processing systems, which may have resulted in errors in assessing eligibility. [152253]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Local authorities have made changes to their IT systems to ensure that working tax credit and child tax credit are taken into account when assessing entitlement to council tax benefit. Taxpayers are required to notify their local authority of the amount of tax credits that they receive. Arrangements are in place between the Inland Revenue and local authorities to enable relevant information about tax credits to be provided when requested.

  Benefit Fraud
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cases of benefit fraud have been identified by Inland Revenue payroll cleanse operations in each of the last five years; how many of these were referred to the Department for Work and Pensions; and if he will make a statement. [153289]

  Dawn Primarolo
  When the Inland Revenue Payroll Cleanse Unit identifies potential benefit fraud cases they refer them all to the Department for Work and Pensions for their action. The numbers of potential fraud cases referred over the last five years are as follows:

  Number

  1999–2000

  21,151

  2000–01

  19,297

  2001–02

  7,102

  2002–03

  11,336

  2003 to 31 January 2004

  11,486

  Decent Homes Standard
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what effect he estimates the Inland Revenue ruling of 24 October 2003 will have on Bridgend's ability to achieve the 2010 decent homes standard; and whether additional Government support will be available to meet this target; [154228]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the effect on the welfare of tenants of Valleys to Coast Housing Ltd. if the Inland Revenue's ruling of 24 October 2003 is upheld. [154229]

  Dawn Primarolo
  On 24 October the Inland Revenue gave a preliminary view on the tax implications of contracts developed by a major accountancy firm. Discussions are continuing.

  Health Statistics
  David Davis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the latest figures for the death rate from(a) cancer and (b) coronary heart disease are for the (i) East Riding of Yorkshire and (ii) United Kingdom; and what they were in 1997. [154166]
  1348W
  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to David Davis, dated 10 February 2004:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning the latest figures for the death rate from (a) cancer and (b) coronary heart disease for the (i) East Riding of Yorkshire and (ii) United Kingdom; and what they were in 1997. (154166)
  Death rates are included in the attached table for 1997 and 2002, the latest year for which figures are currently available.

  Death rates1 from cancer and coronary heart disease2 in the East Riding of Yorkshire local authority and the United Kingdom,31997 and 20024

  Death rates per 100,000 population

  1997

  2002

  Cancer

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  194

  176

  United Kingdom

  203

  189

  Coronary Heart Disease

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  153

  111

  United Kingdom

  163

  128

  1Rates per 100,000 population standardised to the European Standard Population.

  2 The cause of death was defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) for1997, and the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) for 2002. The codes used are listed below: Cancer (malignant neoplasms)—ICD-9 140–208: ICD-10 C00–C97; Coronary Heart Disease—ICD-9 410–414; ICD-10 120–125.

  3 Usual residents of these areas.

  4 Deaths occurring in each calendar year in England and Wales, and deaths registered in each calendar year in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Higher Education Spending
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown) in the last 10 days regarding future higher education spending; and what the outcome was of those discussions. [153695]

  Mr. Boateng
  Treasury Ministers have meetings with a wide range of organisations and individuals, including Members of both Houses of Parliament, as part of the process of policy development and analysis. As with previous Administrations, it is not this Government's practice to provide details of all such meetings. All such contacts are conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Ministerial Code.

  Income Tax
  John Barrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money was raised from income tax in(a) the City of Edinburgh local authority area, (b)) Scotland and (c) the United Kingdom in 2003. [153374]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The most recent information on income tax liability is given in the following table.
  1349W

  Income tax liability (£ billion) in 2000–01

  (a) City of Edinburgh UA

  1.0

  (b) Scotland

  7.3

  (c) United Kingdom

  105.6

  Estimates are based upon the Survey of Personal Incomes 2000–01, and represents liability arising in that year.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the percentage collection rate of income tax in(a) the City of Edinburgh local authority area, (b) Scotland and (c) the UK for 2003; and if he will make a statement. [153375]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue does not hold details of the percentage collection rate of income tax on a local or regional basis.

  The following table shows the national percentage rate as at the end October 2002. These are the latest figures available. The Department's accounting year runs to the end of October and the figures are a snapshot of the position at that time. The figures also include arrears of income tax carried forward from earlier years.

  Income tax

  Total liabilities (£ million)

  125,701.3

  Receipts (£ million)

  120,890.3

  Percentage collected

  96.17

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money was raised from income tax in(a) the North West and (b) Lancashire in the last year for which figures are available. [153879]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The most recent information on income tax liability is given in the table.

  Income tax liability in 2000–01

  £ billion

  (a) North West

  9.3

  (b) Lancashire

  1.6

  Estimates are based upon the Survey of Personal Incomes 2000–01.

  Ivory
  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many prosecutions have resulted from seizures of ivory and ivory products in each of the last five years. [153055]

  John Healey
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on 6 February 2004,Official Report, column 1082W.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what disposal methods have been used for ivory tusks and products seized by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise since 1999. [153056]

  John Healey
  Ivory tusks and products seized by Customs are destroyed by incineration, apart from small quantities donated on request for medical and 1350W
  other scientific research or to museums and zoos for educational purposes. In addition, Customs retain a few samples for public education and staff training purposes.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the answer of 29 January 2004,Official Report, column 496W, on ivory, what type of ivory products were seized; and what information he has collated on the country of origin in each case. [153093]

  John Healey
  I very much regret that my answer of 28 January 2004,Official Report, column 354W, inadvertently contained an incorrect figure. The table gives the corrected information.

  Ivory tusks

  Other items containing ivory

  Calendar year

  Number of seizures

  Number of items seized

  Number of seizures

  Number of items seized

  Total number of seizures

  2003

  7

  22

  23

  126

  30

  2002

  4

  5

  18

  74

  22

  2001

  6

  8

  27

  649

  33

  2000

  6

  19

  19

  84

  25

  1999

  7

  12

  11

  13

  18

  Total

  30

  66

  98

  946

  128

  The 1,012 ivory items seized by HM Customs and Excise since 1999 consisted of the following:

  Number

  Elephant tusks

  17

  Knives

  2

  Jewellery

  66

  Statues

  33

  Carved ivory

  44

  Piano keys

  411

  Other parts of musical instruments

  8

  Furniture

  7

  Other ivory pieces

  258

  In addition, Customs seized the following items, which are treated as ivory for the purposes of recording seizures:

  Number

  Rhino horn

  1

  Walrus tusk

  3

  Hippo tusk

  15

  Other tusks

  30

  Hippo teeth

  117

  Information on the country of origin of the products seized is not available.

  National Insurance
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of those who are due to receive delayed deficiency notices from the National Insurance Contributions Office for each year since 2000 have received the notices; and if he will make a statement. [153285]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue has started writing to people whose national insurance account shows shortfalls for the years 1996–97 to 2001–02. As
  1351W
  the letters may cover any or all of those years, it is not possible to identify separately the letters which relate just to the years since 2000. In total, 10.2 million letters will be issued. As of 1 February 2004, £1.2 million had been sent out. It is anticipated that all letters will be sent out by September.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether investigations into the submission by employers of(a) incorrect and (b) invalid national insurance numbers have ever been suspended; and if he will make a statement. [153286]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Such investigations are carried out on a daily basis as part of the Inland Revenue's normal work procedures to ensure that, where possible, national insurance contributions sent in by employers are properly recorded on employees' individual national insurance accounts. There has not been any suspension of this activity.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many end of year returns which could not be linked to a national insurance account have been left unallocated at the end of each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [153287]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue estimate that around 55 million end of year contribution returns are received each year. Around 4 per cent. of these contain incomplete or incorrect identifying details and cannot be allocated to an individual national insurance account without further information. Most of these non-matching items have no or little impact on people's benefit entitlements. The Inland Revenue works with employers to trace and match contributions, concentrating on cases where they are likely to have a significant impact on entitlement.

  The number of end of year returns not linked to a national insurance account as at 31 March 2003 is given in the table. The numbers outstanding as at 31 March 2002 and earlier years are not available.

  Number

  1997–98

  1,776,278

  1998–99

  2,690,708

  1999–2000

  2,205,116

  2000–01

  2,312,424

  2001–02

  2,359,896

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there is a margin of error allowed by the National Insurance Contributions Office when calculating national insurance figures; and if he will make a statement. [153290]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In the vast majority of cases national insurance records are updated accurately. In some cases where the information received is inaccurate, the Inland Revenue takes all reasonable action to investigate and correct the records, but operates administrative tolerances where the costs of investigating would be excessive compared to the amounts involved. In these cases the amount recorded on the employee's national insurance account always reflects the higher value so that they do not lose out on future benefit entitlement.
  1352W
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what backlogs there are in the handling of national insurance data in the National Insurance Contributions Office; and if he will make a statement. [153291]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The National Insurance Contributions Office is on track to meet all its targets for processing national insurance data in 2003–04.

  Payroll Giving
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many employers provided Payroll Giving schemes in(a) July 1998 and (b) July 2003; [153447]

  (2) how many FTSE 250 companies offered Payroll Giving schemes in (a) December 1998 and (b) December 2003. [153448]

  John Healey
  Payroll Giving schemes allow employees to make donations to charities directly from their pay packets. The Government introduced improvements to the Payroll Giving scheme in Budget 2000. At that time, a 10 per cent. supplement on all donations made through Payroll Giving schemes was introduced for a three-year period, until April 2003. This was extended until April 2004.

  There are no centrally held figures for the number of employers (or FTSE 250 companies) providing Payroll Giving schemes. The Association of Payroll Giving Agencies provides data to the Inland Revenue on the number of new Payroll Giving contracts set up. From these figures, it is estimated that there were 8,947 Payroll Giving schemes at 30 June 1998, which had increased to 12,782 by 30 June 2000. A further 3,299 new schemes had been set up by 30 June 2003. However, this does not give an accurate figure for the number of employers offering schemes as some employers operate more than one scheme and some schemes may be dormant.

  The Inland Revenue has measured employee access to Payroll Giving schemes through NOP surveys. In July 1999, this indicated that around one in five employees (5.75 million) had access to a Payroll Giving scheme. In July 2003, the proportion was about the same (one in five), but the growth in employment means that this equates to six million employees.

  Research and Development Tax Credit
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to introduce a research and development tax incentive in Northern Ireland. [154124]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The research and development tax credit is available to companies for qualifying expenditure on research and development, including those in Northern Ireland. As announced at the Pre-Budget Report, following consultation, the Government intend to simplify and extend the coverage of research and development tax credits.

  Thalidomide Trust
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to instruct the Inland Revenue to allow the Thalidomide Trust to make all distributions tax exempt under section 329 of the Finance Act 1996. [153527]
  1353W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue applies the law as set down by Parliament. It would not be appropriate for Ministers to instruct the Inland Revenue to apply the law in a particular way. Discussions between the trustees of the Thalidomide Trust and officials of the Inland Revenue are currently taking place on this issue. While no conclusion has yet been reached the Government believe we should await the outcome of those discussions.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the rate of unemployment in each(a) county and (b) Lancashire constituency was in each year since 1995; and if he will make a statement. [153510]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, dated 10 February 2004:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about unemployment rates in Lancashire. (153510)
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) compiles statistics of unemployment from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) following the standard International Labour Organisation definitions. Table 1 gives unemployment rates for the administrative county of Lancashire for the twelve month period ending February of

  Table 2—Percentage of resident working age population claiming JSA annual averages1

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Administrative county

  Lancashire

  4.2

  3.2

  2.8

  2.7

  2.4

  2.1

  2.0

  1.9

  Parliamentary constituencies2

  Blackpool North and Fleetwood3

  5.9

  4.7

  3.9

  3.6

  3.4

  3.2

  2.8

  2.6

  Burnley

  3.6

  2.9

  2.6

  2.9

  2.4

  2.2

  2.2

  2.0

  Chorley

  3.8

  2.6

  2.1

  2.1

  1.9

  1.7

  1.6

  1.4

  Fylde

  2.7

  1.9

  1.5

  1.4

  1.3

  1.3

  1.4

  1.2

  Hyndburn

  3.6

  2.9

  2.7

  2.5

  2.1

  1.9

  2.0

  2.0

  Lancaster and Wyre

  3.6

  2.8

  2.4

  2.3

  2.0

  1.7

  1.5

  1.3

  Pendle

  3.8

  2.8

  2.6

  2.9

  2.7

  2.4

  2.2

  2.1

  Preston

  7.1

  5.5

  4.6

  4.3

  3.9

  3.4

  3.3

  3.1

  Ribble Valley

  2.2

  1.5

  1.1

  1.1

  1.0

  0.9

  0.8

  0.8

  Rossendale and Darwen4

  3.3

  2.4

  2.3

  2.5

  2.2

  2.0

  1.9

  1.7

  South Ribble

  3.2

  2.2

  1.8

  1.8

  1.6

  1.3

  1.3

  1.3

  West Lancashire

  5.8

  4.6

  4.3

  4.2

  3.5

  3.1

  3.1

  2.9

  1 The percentage of resident working age population of an area. The population denominators are based on output area data from the 2001 census.

  2 Based on 1995 constituency boundaries available from January 1996

  3 Part in Blackpool Unitary Authority

  4 Part in Blackburn with Darwen Unitary Authority

  Note:

  The data are not seasonally adjusted

  Source:

  Jobcentre Plus administrative system

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Brownfield Land
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which brownfield sites in Northumberland are on English Partnerships' Register. [153812]
  1354W
  each year from 1997 to 2002. Comparable information is not available for earlier years. The LFS sample size is too small to give reliable information about unemployment in each constituency in Lancashire.
  As with any sample survey, estimates from the LFS are subject to sampling variability.
  ONS also compiles statistics of those claiming Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) for local areas including Parliamentary Constituencies. Table 2 gives the annual average percentage of resident working age population who are ISA claimants in the administrative county of Lancashire and for each Constituency in Lancashire for the years 1996 to 2003. Comparable figures for Counties and Parliamentary Constituencies based on the 1995 boundaries are only available from 1996. The data are not seasonally adjusted.

  Table 1—Unemployment rates1 in the administrative County of Lancashire

  Twelve month period ending February

  Per cent

  1997

  5.6

  1998

  4.9

  1999

  4.2

  2000

  5.4

  2001

  4.4

  2002

  3.8

  1 Unemployed as a percentage of the economically active population

  Note:

  These LFS estimates have not been interim-adjusted to reflect the 2001 Census results

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  Keith Hill
  The English Partnerships Register is based on the National Land Use Database (N LUD) of Previously Developed Land, which shows an estimated total of 600 hectares of brownfield land in Northumberland. Of the total, 350 hectares are vacant or derelict and 250 hectares are currently in use hut are known to have potential for redevelopment. Information on individual sites is owned by the local authorities which
  1355W
  supplied it and is available to public sector bodies through the NLUD website on signature of a licence. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is working with English Partnerships, the Information and Development Agency (IDeA) and Ordnance Survey on a system of licensing which will make the information generally available on similar terms.

  Care Homes (Sprinklers)
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to take steps to make it compulsory for care homes for the elderly to be installed with sprinklers; and if he will make a statement. [153595]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written statement given by the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope), on 4 February 2004,Official Report,column 41WS.

  Community Projects
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the work of the Active Community Unit; and what its budget is for each financial year from 2001–02 to 2005–06. [152915]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government's commitment to engaging with communities to strengthen civil society and build civil renewal has been reflected in the work of what is now the Active Communities Directorate in the Home Office. Last year, the work of the Active Community Unit was expanded to incorporate a Charities Unit and a Civil Renewal Unit. Through the new Active Communities Directorate, the Home Office aims to build strong, thriving communities where everyone, regardless of age, race or social background has a stake in society.

  A vibrant voluntary and community sector is central to delivering this vision. The Government's commitment to work with the sector is set out in the Compact and has been underpinned through recent spending reviews. From 2001 to 2006, an extra £155 million is being invested in supporting volunteering. From 2003 to 2006, an extra £218 million is being invested in strengthening the sector's ability to deliver high quality and effective services. This includes the £125 million futurebuilders programme, which is being distributed by an independent provider under contract to the Home Office. These additional investments are mainly programme spending received by the voluntary and community sector and volunteering initiatives.

  The overall budget for the work on Active Communities for each financial year from 2001–02 to 2005–06, rounded to the nearest million pounds, is as follows:

  £ million

  Core funds

  Spending review commitments

  Futurebuilders fund

  2001–02

  21

  25

  —

  2002–03

  22

  35

  —

  2003–04

  21

  60

  10

  2004–05

  21

  63

  57

  2005–06

  21

  65

  58

  1356W

  Fire Service
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress has been made in the procurement of a replacement radio system for the fire service; when he expects that the contract will be awarded; and when he expects the new system to be operational. [154347]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Following evaluation of the responses received to the Invitation to Submit Proposals for a radio system for the Fire and Rescue Services, negotiation has begun with those suppliers who were short listed. It is planned to award the Firelink contract in July 2004 with roll-out due to be completed by the end of December 2007.

  Housing Development Strategy (Islington)
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the London borough of Islington on a housing development strategy that would ensure an increase in the number of properties for rent by the council and housing associations; and if he will make a statement. [153942]

  Keith Hill
  I have had no specific discussions with Islington on this issue. Officials at the Government Office for London have recently agreed as fit for purpose Islington's 2004–07 Housing Strategy. This sets out their need for affordable, including social, housing and the steps they are taking to meet the demand.

  Islington Council
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of objections to the methods of consultation used by Islington council on an arm's length management organisation; and if he will make a statement. [153945]

  Keith Hill
  The London borough of Islington applied to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister in January for approval under section 27 of the Housing Act 1985 to delegate its housing management functions to its Arms Length Management Organisation (ALMO). The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is currently considering the consultation undertaken by the borough and all the representations received as part of the assessment of this application.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will rank each county council and unitary authority according to the per capita level per authority, listing the grant amount in each case. [154377]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Two tables have been made available in the Library of the House. The first table shows the per capita 2004–05 formula grant for shire counties, ranked in order. The second table shows the per capita 2004–05 formula grant for unitary authorities (i.e. London boroughs (including the City of London), metropolitan districts, and shire unitary authorities).

  Two tables have been provided since shire counties do not provide the same services as unitary authorities. Unitary authorities provide a broadly equivalent service to both shire counties and shire districts in two-tier shire areas.
  1357W
  However care should be taken even when comparing only shire counties or only unitary authorities.

  Shire counties that are in areas where Local Government Re-organisation has occurred do not have responsibility for fire services, whereas the other shire counties do.

  The City of London has additional responsibility for police services within its area and the Isle of Wight and Isles of Scilly have responsibility for fire services within their areas. Within the London area, responsibility for public transport lies with Transport for London.

  Social Housing
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what action his Department has taken to ensure that all social sector homes have(a) adequate loft and cavity wall insulation, (b) an efficient heating system and (c) a minimum energy efficiency rating. [153278].

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has a Public Service Agreement to provide that all social sector tenants have the opportunity of a decent home by 2010. The decent homes standard has four criteria, one of which relates to thermal comfort and requires the home to have efficient heating as well as effective insulation.

  Delivery of the decent homes target will involve carrying out improvement works to the thermal comfort of 1.26 million dwellings and will ensure that all social sector homes have effective insulation and efficient heating. Of these 77 per cent. fail on insulation, 17 per cent. fail on heating and 6 per cent. fail on both.

  In addition, all new social sector homes grant-funded by the Housing Corporation are required to achieve an EcoHomes 'Pass' rating, which goes beyond the minimum standards for energy efficiency of all new developments that are set out in part L of the Building Regulations. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is committed to further amendments to Part L which will increase the energy efficiency of new dwellings and which should be in place by 2005.

  There is no requirement that social homes meet a minimum energy efficiency rating.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what studies his Department has commissioned into the standards of(a) insulation and (b) heating systems in social sector housing. [153279]

  Keith Hill
  The English House Condition Survey provides a comprehensive range of data on insulation and heating standards in the social sector stock. The latest data are from the 2001 survey. Information from the 2002–03 combined survey will be available in November 2004.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the adequacy of the decent homes standard set for social housing. [153280]

  Keith Hill
  When the decent homes target was first set, a definition was established so that those responsible for delivery were working to a common outcome, resources 1358W
  required for delivery could be established and progress tracked. A decent home is one which:

  meets the current statutory minimum standard for housing (fitness standard)

  is in a reasonable state of repair

  has reasonably modern facilities and services

  provides a reasonable degree of thermal comfort

  The standard is a minimum standard. It is the standard that triggers action and is not the standard that we expect work to be done to. The guidance on implementation of the standard encourages landlords, in partnership with their tenants, to go beyond the basic requirements of the decent homes standard where possible.

  Resources available to tackle poor condition housing are limited and therefore we focussed the definition on the essentials to provide a warm, wind and weather tight home.

  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many(a) council houses and flats and (b) social housing units were built in each of the last 25 years. [153596]

  Keith Hill
  National numbers, based on reports from local authorities and National House-Building Council, are published in Housing Statistics 2003 (Tables 2.5a–2.5f), a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has received concerning the proportion of social housing to be included in new developments in Greater London; and if he will make a statement. [153947]

  Keith Hill
  The issue is frequently raised in the context of individual planning cases and sometimes in relation to borough unitary development plans and associated supplementary planning guidance. The issue was discussed at the examination in public of the draft London Plan in April 2003. Since then, the House Builders' Federation have raised the issue in discussions with officials in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

  Travellers
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister in circumstances when unauthorised developments by travellers and gipsies are permitted by planning inspectors or the Secretary of State because of the traveller and gipsy status of the inhabitants, what requirements his Department places on those inhabitants to maintain a traveller or gipsy lifestyle; and what this lifestyle must consist of. [153723]

  Keith Hill
  For the purposes of planning law, a gipsy is a person of nomadic habit of life, whatever their race or origin. Nomadic implies a connection between the person's travels and their means of making or seeking their livelihood. Gipsy status may be a material consideration taken into account in deciding whether to grant planning permission for a caravan site established without it. Planning permission is not simply granted because of the gipsy status of the inhabitants. Court decisions mean that nomadic and gipsy status are not necessarily lost where travel is periodic, seasonal or ceases temporarily. However, a person who retired
  1359W
  permanently from travelling for whatever reason (e.g. ill-health) would cease to be a gipsy for planning law purposes and would be in breach of a planning condition limiting the use of a caravan site to gipsies. Enforcement of planning control is a matter for the local planning authority.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Bribery
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what procedures the UK Trade and Investment Business Group has in place to prevent corruption and bribery on projects supported under the Overseas Projects Fund. [151514]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Overseas Projects Fund (OPF) provides financial assistance towards the pre-contractual costs incurred by British companies when pursuing major overseas projects. The scheme closed to new applications on 7 July 2003. British companies receiving assistance under the OPF Scheme must provide UKTI with regular reports of their pre-contractual activities and submit auditor's reports in respect of the claims for reimbursement of the eligible costs they incur. In any cases where the claims give rise to any need for further clarification this is sought from the company prior to making a payment. Before the award of OPF, the post in the country where the project is located provides UKTI with an evaluation of both the project and the company involved.

  UKTI staff administering the OPF Scheme have internal guidance on bribery and corruption, details of which are in my reply to the hon. Member on 4 February 2004, Official Report, column 876W.

  Broadband
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans Ofcom has to support alternative service providers offering sustainable broadband solutions by amending the charges applied to these providers for activation and service migration in the broadband market. [152394]

  Mr. Timms
  These are matters for the Office of Communications (Ofcom). I have, therefore, asked the Chief Executive of Ofcom to respond directly to the hon. Member. Copies of the Chief Executive's letter will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the means by which community broadband networks can access advice and financial support from her Department for their campaigns. [154120]

  Mr. Timms
  The joint DTI/Defra Rural Broadband Unit has recently published a toolkit to help rural communities and businesses understand the issues surrounding access to broadband.

  DTI and Defra are supporting the Community Broadband Network (CBN) which aims to offer a collaboration network for those setting up community-owned projects. The CBN is a partnership that includes
  1360W
  RuralNet and the Phone Co-op and will create a market place to help bring together those who need advice with those who have the experience.

  DTI are supporting a "broadband place" on the UK Villages website. This will see a dedicated broadband 'space' on all pages serving the 32,000 communities on that website and will enable communities around the UK to share advice and experiences of broadband.

  The regional development agencies and devolved administrations are able to offer support and advice for community broadband campaigns. For example, the South-East England Development Agency has produced an online toolkit to support the development of wireless community broadband networks. htto:// www.seeonline.net/broadband/communityselfhelp.

  Competitiveness (Environmental Targets)
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the impact of the target for the reduction of carbon emissions on the overall competitiveness of UK industry. [153541]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department has published a number of assessments of the impact of meeting carbon reduction targets on the competitiveness of UK industry. Modelling work undertaken for the 2003 energy White Paper looked at the implications of 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. reductions in CO2 emissions by 2020. The assessment is available at annex F of www.dti.gov.uk/energy/whitepaper/phase2.pdf.

  Further work has also recently been published looking at the trade and regional implications of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme which is due to start in January 2005. This is available at: www.dti.gov.uk/energy/sepn/euetsimplications.pdf.

  Electricity Supply
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of(a) projected supplies and (h) projected usage of electricity for the coming years; and if she will make a statement. [153369]

  Mr. Timms
  Latest DTI projections of future electricity demand are set out in updated energy projections published in July 2003 and available on the DTI website: http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/sepn/projections.pdf.

  NETA places strong incentives on suppliers to contract for their customers' demand and also places strong incentives on generators to deliver the power that they have contracted to deliver.

  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to secure the continuity of the electricity supply. [153922]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government attach great importance to reliable electricity supplies—reliable supply is one of the four key goals of energy policy as set out in the Government's Energy White Paper.
  1361W
  We are confident that a market-based approach for provision of electricity will work—there has been evidence of that this year, as mothballed plant has been brought back in response to earlier projections that of inadequate capacity. Indeed, National Grid Transco recently announced that the winter generation margin had increased to 21.6 per cent., indicating the ability of the electricity market to deliver secure supplies, including the maintenance of secure supplies during the recent cold weather.

  If the market is to work, it needs confidence that Government will not intervene—we have said we will not intervene in the market except in extreme circumstances, to protect safety. That remains our position. But we are not complacent and, through JESS, we and Ofgem continually monitor developments and look for ways to improve the operation of the market.

  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has in place to ensure that the power cuts that affected(a) areas of London and Kent on 28 August 2003 and (b) the West Midlands on 5 September 2003 will not re-occur. [153921]

  Mr. Timms
  Officials in my Engineering Inspectorate monitor power failures attributed to the national grid and they liaise with staff in the transmission companies to ensure adequate remedial measures are put in place. At my request, inspectors recently completed a formal investigation of the major interruptions on 28 August and 5 September 2003.

  The investigation has highlighted a number of issues in connection with the power cuts. The inspectors' conclusions and recommendations are being passed to the electricity companies concerned, so that they can take the necessary action to enhance the robustness of their networks, and so make such occurrences less likely. The Engineering Inspectorate will be holding discussions with the companies concerned and monitoring the action they take. It has powers to ensure compliance with any recommendations made.

  Home Computing Initiatives
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions her Department has had with representatives of the Swedish Government about home computing initiatives, with particular reference to the annual tax exemption on loaned computers announced by the Chancellor in 1999. [153341]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  I understand that Inland Revenue officials have had contact in the past with officials in the Swedish Ministry of Finance to obtain information about the benefits tax exemption that applies to computers in Sweden.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money has been spent in each of the last five years on promoting internet use among micro and small businesses. [153572]
  1362W
  Mr. Timms
  Through the Information Society Initiative and its successor the UK online for business programme, the Government has spent the following on promoting the use of the Internet and ICT:

  £ million

  1999–2000

  10.1

  2000–01

  13.9

  2001–02

  15.1

  2002–03

  13.1

  2003–04

  17

  1 Forecast outturn.

  Internet Shopping
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the Government's support for the Internet Shopping Is Safe campaign; and what assessment she has made of the campaign's contribution to consumer confidence in e-commerce. [152944]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Government have been pleased to lend their support to the Interactive Media in Retail Group's (IMRG) Internet Shopping Is Safe Campaign on past occasions.

  The Government welcome private sector initiatives to promote e-commerce. Business has an important role to play in spreading good practice and in raising consumer awareness about safe internet use.

  My Department has made no assessment of the impact of the IMRG campaign on consumer confidence in e-commerce.

  The Government are continuing their efforts to improve consumers' access to better information about online shopping through their Safe Internet Shopping initiative.

  Labour Disputes
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the average cost of working days lost due to labour disputes in(a) the public sector and (b) the private sector for each year between 1995 and 2003; and if she will make a statement. [151712]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  [holding answer 29 January 2004]I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary on 2 February 2004.Official Report, columns 635–36W.

  Manufacturing Advisory Service
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the Manufacturing Advisory Service; and whether her Department will continue to fund this service in future years. [153433]

  Jacqui Smith
  I receive regular reports on the performance of the Manufacturing Advisory Service. These highlight the great success that the service has achieved as a source of practical advice and support to manufacturers in England and Wales since its launch in April 2002. More than 5,400 companies have benefited from initial diagnostic visits by the service's expert
  1363W
  advisers; of these, over 1,100 have gone on to undertake in-depth projects, resulting in productivity improvements averaging 38 per cent. and an annualised added value benefit approaching £38 million.

  The Department's funding for the Manufacturing Advisory Service, which is at least matched by the English Regional Development Agencies and the Welsh Development Agency, will amount to £4.7 million in 2003–04 and £3.4 million in 2004–05. We are in the process of discussing with the Regional Development Agencies how the service will be funded in future years.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much imported nuclear waste has been dealt with by NIREX; what revenue NIREX has received for dealing with that waste; and if she will make a statement. [153373]

  Mr. Timms
  None. The UK does not allow the import of radioactive waste, and Nirex has no role in handling spent nuclear fuel from overseas.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the costs that will he incurred as a result of her plans for intermediate level waste substitution. [153560]

  Mr. Timms
  The costs associated with ILW substitution are dealt with in the Regulatory Impact Assessment at Appendix 2 of the Consultation document, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much additional nuclear waste she estimates will be stored in the United Kingdom as a result of her plans for intermediate level waste substitution. [153561]

  Mr. Timms
  The NAC International report estimates that the volume of overseas intermediate level radioactive waste (ILW) retained in the UK as a result of ILW substitution would be about 1.4 per cent. of the UK's total ILW. This amounts to approximately 3,000m3. This would be partially offset by a reduction in high level waste that would otherwise be retained in the UK of about 50m3.

  Overseas Projects Fund
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and industry if she will list the companies which have received support from the Overseas Projects Fund since 1997, stating in each instance(a) the amount received by each company and (b) the project for which the support was provided. [151515]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Overseas Projects Fund (OPF) Scheme closed to new applications on 7 July 2003. The scheme provides financial assistance towards the pre-contractual costs incurred by British companies when pursuing major overseas projects. It does not provide finance for the project involved. Since 1 January 1997, 100 companies have received OPF funding of 1364W
  £21 million in respect of 154 projects. Disclosure of individual OPF awards to companies could compromise their efforts to win overseas business. (Exemptions 13 and 14 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information apply—third party confidentiality and information given in confidence).

  Printer Cartridge Remanufacturing Industry
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether she has met representatives from the printer cartridge remanufacturing industry to discuss the scope of the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive. [153196]

  Mr. Timms
  DTI Ministers have not received any requests for meetings with representatives of the printer cartridge remanufacturing industry.

  Productivity
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the impact of enterprise areas on(a) the overall productivity of UK businesses and (b) reducing disparities in regional productivity. [153575]

  Jacqui Smith
  Enterprise areas were announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the 2002 pre-Budget report. A range of policy measures, some of which are currently still under development or subject to new legislation, will benefit enterprise areas. It is too early for an assessment of the contribution of these measures to economic regeneration or productivity to have been made.

  Wind Turbines
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the effects of low frequency noise from wind turbines on human health; and if she will make a statement. [153742]

  Mr. Timms
  Currently planning authorities take into account the recommendations and methodologies for the measurement of noise in the case of wind farms, as set out in the report "ETSU-R-97: The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms".

  The methodologies applied during the planning application stage to satisfy authorities that noise emission levels will fall within accepted levels do not include the measurement of infrasound as we are not aware of any scientifically validated evidence that infrasound emitted from wind turbines affects human health.

  Project Funding
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what funding has been provided by her Department to help finance(a) the Rethinking Construction Initiative, (b) the Sustainable Technologies Initiative, (c) the UK Online for Business Initiative, (d) the Waste and Resource Action Programme, (e) the Euroim II Initiative, (f) the Feasibility Studies Initiative for SMES, (g) the Local Partnership Fund and (h) the Technology Partnership Initiative in each financial year since the inception of each; what funding has been

  1365W
  allocated to finance each in future financial years; and if she will estimate the extent to which businesses have benefited from each initiative to date. [149447]

  Expenditure (£000)

  Rethinking Construction Initiative(a)

  Sustainable Technologies Initiative

  UK Online for Business(c)

  WRAP(d)

  EUROIM II

  Local Business Partnership Fund(e)

  Technology Partnership Initiative

  1999–2000

  n/a

  132

  —

  —

  —

  —

  350

  2000–01

  n/a

  213

  13,900

  —

  18

  —

  500

  2001–02

  1,494

  312

  15,100

  650

  49

  23

  500

  2002–03

  1,696

  821

  13,100

  5,000

  20

  259

  500

  2003–04

  1,723

  1,170

  7,000

  5,000

  65

  314

  450

  2004–05

  —

  2,107

  —

  n/a

  38

  —

  —

  2005–06

  —

  1,554

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2006–07

  —

  1,354

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2007–08

  —

  (b)1,786

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2008–09

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Notes:

  1. Funded by former DETR 1998 to June 2001. These data are not readily available.

  2. Shows funding in years 2007–08 and 2008–09.

  3. UK online for business was established in September 2000 as a successor programme to the Information Society Initiative.

  4. Expenditure in 2000–01 includes the period April to August 2000, when the ISI was still in force.

  5. Funding for 2004–05 will be announced shortly.

  6. The Local Partnership Fund is not a DTI scheme. Expenditure figures have been provided for the Local Business Partnership Fund.

  7. Some historic expenditure data have been omitted from this reply due to the disproportionate cost of providing it.

  8. Forecast expenditure reflects outstanding legal commitments.

  Benefits to business:

  (a) Rethinking Construction Initiative

  In the four years to 2003 projects involved in the demonstration projects programme (worth £7 billion) have achieved:

  cost savings of 6 per cent. compared to the industry average, equating to £420 million;

  a 61 per cent. lower accident rate than the industry average, projected as a £360 million cost saving; and

  2 per cent. higher profits than the industry average, equating to £140 million.

  (b) Sustainable Technologies Initiative

  The Sustainable Technologies Initiative supports collaborative research and technological development to improve the sustainable economic growth of UK business.

  (c) UK Online for Business

  UK online for business programme has helped several hundred thousand businesses, with over 250,000 interactions per year. The programme has provided advice, publications, tools, case studies and research to help companies understand and adopt e-business.

  A recent survey showed high levels of customer satisfaction: 89 per cent. of customers using the help desk facility said they would use the service again, and 87 per cent. using the call centre said they would use the service again. Satisfaction levels with UK online for business publications were also high at 86 per cent.

  (d) Waste and Resources Action Programme

  Numerous businesses have benefited from receiving advice and financial support from WRAP. Further details can be obtained from the WRAP Annual Report and Accounts, which are available at: www.wrap.org.uk
  1366W
  Ms Hewitt
  The following table shows the level of funding provided to 2002–03 and the projected spend in future years.

  (e) Euroim II

  EUROIM II helps businesses in the industrial minerals sector to find partners and prepare proposals for research and development support from EU programmes.

  (f) Feasibility Studies Initiative for SMEs

  This is not a specific DTI initiative, although feasibility studies are a key feature of the new Grant For Investigating An Innovative Idea.

  (g) Local Partnership Fund

  The Local Partnership Fund is not a DTI scheme.

  DTI supports Local Business Partnerships through the Local Business Partnership Fund. This aims to develop a culture of education and dialogue with enforcers, and reduce the cost to business of implementing regulation by helping businesses to understand their responsibilities and making it easier for them to comply.

  (h) Technology Partnership Initiative

  The Technology Partnership Initiative promotes the UK environmental technology and services sector overseas and is a means of introducing UK companies to international markets.

  Public Bodies (Membership)
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who the members of the(a) Northern Ireland Committee on Telecommunications, (b) Economic and Social Research Council, (c) Medical Research Council, (d) Natural Environment Research Council and (e) Horticulture Research International were on 1 January; what their term of office is in each case; and what their remuneration is. [151302]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information is as follows.

  (a) The Northern Ireland Committee on Telecommunications ceased to exist on 31 December 2003.
  1367W
  (b) The Economic and Social Research Council consists of the following members:

  Members

  Period of Appointments

  Alan Alexander

  1 August 2003 to 31 July 2006

  Patricia Broadfoot

  1 August 2001 to 31 July 2004

  Frances Cairncross1

  1 April 2001 to 31 March 2004

  Andrew Chesher

  1 August 2001 to 31 July 2004

  Helen Dent

  1 August 2003 to 31 July 2006

  Fiona Devine

  31 January 2003 to 31 July 2005

  Ian Diamond2

  1 January 2003 to 31 December 2006

  Hayden Ellis

  1 August 2002 to 31 July 2004

  Paul Johnson3

  1 August 2002 to 31 July 2004

  Jonathan Adair Turner

  12 August 2003 to 31 July 2006

  Robin Wensley

  1 August 2001 to 31 July 2004

  Stephen Wilks

  1 August 2001 to 31 July 2004

  Alan Wilson

  1 August 2002 to 31 July 2004

  Andrew Winckle

  1 August 2003 to 31 July 2006

  1 Chair.

  2 Chief Executive.

  3 This member is a Government official and does not receive remuneration from the Councils for this work.

  Note:
  Frances Cairncross has been reappointed for the period 1 April 2004 to 30 March 2007.

  The Chair is paid £8,000 per annum and the members £6,000 per annum. The Chief Executive is not paid as a Council member and currently receives £81,800 per annum. He is also eligible for a bonus of up to 20 per cent. of salary.

  (c) The Medical Research Council consists of the following members:

  Members

  Period of Appointments

  David Armstrong

  1 August 2003 to 31 July 2006

  Ernest Armstrong1

  1 March 2001 to 28 February 2005

  Colin Blakemore2

  1 October 2003 to 30 September 2007

  William Castell

  1 August 2001 to 31 July 2005

  Anthony Cleaver3

  1 October 2002 to 30 September 2006

  Kay Davies

  1 October 2002 to 31 July 2005

  Richard Denton

  1 August 2002 to 31 July 2004

  Peter Fellner

  1 August 2003 to 31 July 2007

  Derek Flint

  1 August 2002 to 31 July 2006

  Ruth Hall

  1 August 2001 to 31 July 2004

  Ian MacLennan

  1 August 2003 to 31 July 2004

  Richard North

  1 August 2001 to 31 July 2004

  John Pattison1

  1 September 1999 to 31 July 2004

  Generva Richardson

  1 March 2000 to 29 February 2004

  Nancy Rothwell

  1 August 2003 to 31 July 2004

  John Savill

  1 August 2002 to 31 July 2005

  1 These members are Government officials and do not receive remuneration from the Councils for this work.

  2 Chief Executive.

  3 Chair.

  Note:

  The Chair is paid £8,000 per annum and the members £6,000 per annum. The Chief Executive is not paid as a Council member and currently receives £110,000 per annum. He is also eligible for a bonus of up to 20 per cent. of salary.

  (d) The Natural Environment Research Council consists of the following members:

  Members

  Period of Appointments

  Valerie Brown

  1 August 2002 to 31 July 2005

  Howard Dalton1

  1 April 2002 to 31 March 2006

  Trevor Davies

  1 November 2001 to 31 July 2005

  Michael Depledge

  15 September 2003 to 31 July 2006

  Lesley Glover

  1 August 2001 to 31 July 2004

  Colin Hicks1

  4 December 2002 to 30 November 2006

  Edwin Jenner

  1 April 2002 to 31 March 2005

  1368W

  Members

  Period of Appointments

  John Lawton2

  1 October 2002 to 30 September 2005

  Robert Margetts3

  1 January 2004 to 31 December 2006

  Karen Morgan

  1 August 2002 to 31 July 2005

  Sara Parkin

  1 August 2003 to 31 July 2006

  Judith Petts

  1 August 2003 to 31 July 2006

  David Read

  1 August 2002 to 31 July 2005

  David G. Roberts

  1 August 2003 to 31 July 2006

  1 This member is a Government official and does not receive remuneration from the Councils for this work.

  2 Chief Executive.

  3 Chair.

  Note:

  The Chair is paid £8,000 per annum and the members £6,000 per annum. The Chief Executive is not paid as a Council member and currently receives £91,000 per annum. He is also eligible for a bonus of up to 20 per cent. of salary.

  (e) Appointments to Horticulture Research International are made by Defra. Details are set out in Defra's response to parliamentary question number 150839.

  Union Modernisation Fund
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the planned budget is of the Union Modernisation Fund for each year between 2004 and 2009. [153550]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  We have not yet set the fund's budgets for individual years because our planning is at an early stage. I envisage that total spend from the fund will be of the order of £5 million to £10 million. I do not expect any expenditure from the fund before 2005–06 and I have not yet decided when it will close.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of the Union Modernisation Fund will be(a) discretionary and(b) for helping workplace representatives to understand corporate accounts and corporate strategies; and if she will make a statement. [153551]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Our ideas to establish a fund are in their early stages. However, we plan to undertake a full public consultation on the draft rules of the fund in the autumn. When we have finalised the detailed rules of the fund after those consultations, we will be able to answer the particular questions you raise.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  "Schools for the Future"
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he will announce his decisions on the next round of "Schools for the Future". [153131]

  Mr. Miliband
  We aim to announce successful projects in the first wave of Building Schools for the Future shortly. A written statement will be made to Parliament. Later this year, we expect to make announcements about subsequent waves of funding.

  Behaviour Improvement Programme
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of
  1369W
  8 January 2004,Official Report, column 470W, to the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), which local education authorities have received funds under the Behaviour Improvement Programme; and how much money they have received in each year since 1997 to enable them to tackle pupil behaviour. [148322]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]: The following tables provide information relating to local education authorities in the first and second phases of the Behaviour Improvement Programme (BIP). As well as BIP funding, they provide details of other DfES funding allocated through Standards Fund grants that was most relevant to pupil behaviour and attendance as

  £

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Behaviour grants

  Behaviour grants

  School inclusion: pupil support grant

  EIC— School learning mentors and LSUs grant

  School inclusion: pupil support grant

  EIC— learning mentors and LSUs grant

  School inclusion: pupil support grant

  EIC— learning mentors and LSUs grant

  Phase 1 BIP LEAs

  Barking and Dagenham

  53,100

  64,450

  181,537

  —

  324,154

  448,000

  424,200

  768,000

  Birmingham

  51,120

  208,564

  1,431,850

  2,660,963

  2,745,445

  8,511,400

  3,297,300

  10,474,400

  Bolton

  144,060

  138,600

  249,648

  —

  450,438

  —

  524,510

  —

  Bradford

  117,600

  126,765

  370,910

  1,212,970

  1,038,324

  3,846,000

  1,259,400

  4,688,000

  Brent

  156,900

  155,000

  —

  —

  149,399

  580,000

  550,700

  994,000

  Camden

  72,600

  97,300

  274,044

  345,033

  338,762

  1,102,900

  449,850

  1,316,900

  City of Bristol

  65,040

  101,625

  300,403

  —

  601,542

  734,000

  650,900

  1,258,000

  City of Nottingham

  —

  125,012

  300,231

  —

  759,446

  810,000

  919,738

  1,389,000

  Enfield

  285,240

  175,280

  299,300

  —

  441,845

  —

  582,050

  893,000

  Greenwich

  84,000

  117,250

  341,588

  543,479

  600,907

  1,791,000

  739,550

  2,210,000

  Hackney

  92,400

  150,000

  351,785

  395,438

  567,223

  1,422,300

  637,250

  1,792,300

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  12,000

  31,750

  155,545

  235,290

  288,194

  789,000

  372,500

  975,000

  Haringey

  205,560

  144,885

  249,459

  456,762

  553,976

  1,609,800

  740,500

  2,023,800

  Hounslow

  39,960

  38,000

  102,463

  —

  375,727

  —

  455,450

  674,000

  Islington

  189,600

  130,500

  305,285

  368,499

  473,002

  1,315,600

  579,700

  1,646,600

  Kensington and Chelsea

  99,300

  3,780

  133,339

  137,743

  152,181

  826,800

  152,762

  1,143,800

  Knowsley

  76,800

  24,375

  291,054

  507,285

  775,415

  1,682,500

  908,550

  2,076,500

  Lambeth

  118,020

  137,093

  316,149

  339,617

  542,372

  1,347,900

  640,450

  1,744,900

  Leeds

  256,320

  302,250

  473,013

  1,363,727

  1,087,851

  4,434,200

  1,335,350

  5,440,200

  Lewisham

  114,900

  121,440

  280,279

  527,111

  583,335

  1,752,800

  685,400

  2,166,800

  Liverpool

  209,280

  178,000

  398,101

  1,344,798

  1,494,998

  4,211,800

  1,797,800

  5,122,800

  Manchester

  107,160

  122,513

  434,635

  1,080,735

  1,432,680

  3,603,400

  1,673,000

  4,499,400

  Newham

  91,200

  178,500

  336,066

  773,793

  839,869

  2,539,900

  1,124,650

  3,121,900

  Oldham

  —

  —

  205,517

  —

  469,200

  —

  573,500

  815,000

  Reading

  —

  —

  69,636

  —

  146,801

  —

  152,700

  —

  Rochdale

  127,680

  135,000

  193,750

  —

  502,491

  626,000

  589,700

  1,073,000

  Salford

  44,880

  48,452

  198,530

  478,338

  580,082

  1,615,700

  641,623

  2,002,700

  Sheffield

  —

  102,172

  255,330

  1,009,575

  926,995

  3,235,800

  1,007,900

  3,973,800

  Slough borough council

  —

  125,100

  126,622

  —

  162,144

  —

  191,500

  —

  Southwark

  87,840

  67,389

  427,031

  544,656

  802,783

  1,870,400

  974,000

  2,342,400

  Tower Hamlets

  247,860

  185,183

  340,939

  775,891

  954,690

  2,400,100

  1,189,250

  2,915,100

  Waltham Forest

  151,560

  151,050

  259,372

  508,202

  521,261

  1,682,300

  627,050

  2,371,300

  Westminster

  47,100

  45,000

  207,372

  315,512

  328,063

  640,900

  370,000

  640,900

  Wolverhampton

  215,880

  209,677

  279,733

  —

  455,057

  —

  565,550

  714,000

  £

  2002–03

  2003–04

  School inclusion: pupil support grant

  EIC—learning mentors and LSUs grant

  Behaviour improvement programme

  EIC—learning mentors and LSUs grant

  Behaviour improvement programme

  Phase 1 BIP LEAs

  Barking and Dagenham

  435,064

  849,325

  816,667

  907,415

  1,400,335

  Birmingham

  3,132,435

  11,045,215

  875,000

  11,452,940

  1,442,000

  Bolton

  534,475

  —

  875,000

  —

  1,442,000

  Bradford

  1,206,891

  4,936,502

  875,000

  5,114,004

  1,442,000

  Brent

  564,522

  1,098,266

  875,000

  1,172,742

  1,442,000

  Camden

  466,081

  1,404,027

  875,000

  1,466,261

  1,442,000

  City of Bristol

  671,287

  1,374,994

  816,667

  1,458,560

  1,400,335

  City of Nottingham

  936,896

  1,509,621

  816,667

  1,595,780

  1,400,335

  Enfield

  611,153

  1,657,990

  875,000

  1,755,126

  1,442,000

  Greenwich

  742,741

  2,324,551

  816,667

  2,406,373

  1,400,335

  Hackney

  628,813

  1,868,779

  816,667

  1,923,407

  1,400,335

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  384,403

  1,035,888

  875,000

  1,079,380

  1,442,000

  1370W
  well as inclusion more generally. Details of expenditure on behaviour-specific measures are not collected centrally and cannot therefore be disaggregated.

  The grants have been spent on a wide range of measures to support schools and pupils, including learning mentors, learning support units, education welfare officers, behaviour and education support teams, additional time for senior school staff to focus on behaviour and attendance issues, electronic registration systems for schools, enhanced pupil referral units and other forms of alternative provision for excluded pupils, additional services on school sites to increase community involvement and support for parents of disaffected pupils.
  1371W

  £

  2002–03

  2003–04

  School inclusion: pupil support grant

  EIC—learning mentors and LSUs grant

  Behaviour improvement programme

  EIC—learning mentors and LSUs grant

  Behaviour LSUs grant programme

  Haringey

  768,714

  2,129,796

  875,000

  2,205,507

  1,442,000

  Hounslow

  455,500

  1,256,024

  816,667

  1,332,470

  1,400,335

  Islington

  583,574

  1,720,802

  875,000

  1,773,803

  1,442,000

  Kensington and Chelsea

  315,861

  1,173,608

  816,667

  1,194,900

  1,400,335

  Knowsley

  894,445

  2,175,852

  875,000

  2,246,817

  1,442,000

  Lambeth

  644,551

  1,811,866

  816,667

  1,859,699

  1,400,335

  Leeds

  1,321,814

  5,734,182

  875,000

  5,944,170

  1,442,000

  Lewisham

  667,643

  2,271,569

  875,000

  2,346,405

  1,442,000

  Liverpool

  1,812,723

  5,415,053

  875,000

  5,623,805

  1,442,000

  Manchester

  1,724,048

  4,722,977

  875,000

  4,882,674

  1,442,000

  Newham

  1,098,115

  3,290,486

  875,000

  3,410,904

  1,442,000

  Oldham

  568,717

  1,503,257

  875,000

  1,584,154

  1,442,000

  Reading

  160,335

  —

  875,000

  56,661

  1,442,000

  Rochdule

  590,596

  1,174,239

  875,000

  1,246,552

  1,442,000

  Salford

  657,043

  2,091,173

  875,000

  2,154,368

  1,442,000

  Sheffield

  990,027

  4,166,982

  875,000

  4,304,969

  1,442,000

  Slough borough council

  193,933

  —

  875,000

  —

  1,442,000

  Southwark

  989,651

  2,451,420

  875,000

  2,529,292

  1,442,000

  Tower Hamlets

  1,224,114

  3,088,501

  816,667

  3,212,359

  1,400,335

  Waltham Forest

  648,442

  2,174,202

  875,000

  2,246,275

  1,442,000

  Westminster

  376,153

  707,227

  875,000

  754,604

  1,442,000

  Wolverhampton

  592,328

  1,328,161

  875,000

  1,408,276

  1,442,000

  £

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Behaviour grunts

  Behaviour grunts

  School inclusion: pupil support grant

  EIC—learning mentors and LSUs grant

  School inclusion: pupil support grant

  EIC—learning mentors and LSUs grant

  School inclusion: pupil support grant

  EIC—learning mentors and LSUs grant

  Phase 2 BIP LEAs

  Barnsley

  120,420

  144,032

  226,442

  —

  410,952

  —

  515,400

  702,000

  Blackburn and Darwen

  —

  43,375

  259,554

  —

  491,733

  —

  531,120

  526,000

  Blackpool

  —

  99,950

  143,058

  —

  295,408

  —

  329,400

  376,000

  Doncaster

  70,980

  60,265

  254,912

  —

  538,892

  —

  632,150

  904,000

  Baling

  118,140

  —

  155,241

  —

  489,099

  631,000

  638,800

  1,082,000

  Gateshead

  18,300

  21,700

  93,588

  —

  369,175

  524,000

  460,930,

  898,000

  Halton

  —

  60,727

  110,380

  —

  303,634

  408,000

  337,250

  699,000

  Hartlepool

  70,020

  87,910

  152,496

  —

  217,050

  312,000

  268,000

  535,000

  Hull

  67,200

  129,249

  241,296

  —

  703,101

  770,000

  856,840

  1,320,000

  Leicester

  —

  125,000

  327,835

  —

  560,257

  798,000

  654,350

  1,368,000

  Luton

  —

  —

  171,747

  —

  428,344

  —

  478,691

  646,000

  Middlesbrough

  34,440

  78,550

  208,821

  —

  427,000

  528,000

  518,199

  906,000

  Newcastle

  106,800

  149,250

  182,288

  —

  559,043

  746,000

  702,650

  1,279,000

  North Tyneside

  173,040

  175,304

  317,220

  —

  349,879

  490,000

  403,350,

  840,000

  Redcar and Cleveland

  59,100

  165,750

  233,484

  —

  312,014

  512,000

  395,300.

  877,000

  Rotherham

  —

  46,350

  113,477

  589,083

  444,873

  1,844,600

  548,550

  2,233,600

  Sandwell

  —

  106,250

  308,205

  —

  550,000

  —

  735,650

  991,000

  Sefton

  94,500

  53,500

  183,546

  —

  525,220

  362,000

  592,250

  1,088,000

  Solihull

  16,800

  —

  42,405

  240,646

  68,110

  278,150

  272,440

  South Tyneside

  20,980

  93,350

  119,237

  —

  372,100

  508,000

  416,600

  871,000

  St. Helens

  —

  40,849

  140,237

  —

  303,340

  534,000

  366,000

  915,000

  Stockton

  63,000

  —

  122,544

  —

  355,503

  557,000

  428,600

  955,000

  Stoke

  72,000

  93,060

  171,242

  —

  533,590

  676,000

  641,165

  1,159,000

  Sunderland

  —

  86,500

  202,926

  —

  673,264

  966,000

  819,000

  1,656,000

  Wandsworth

  205,800

  118,130

  231,103

  385,498

  417,970

  1,311,100

  457,450

  1,615,100

  Wirral

  115,980

  47,000

  221,297

  —

  684,558

  1,035,000

  907,600

  1,774,000

  £

  2002–03

  2003–04

  School inclusion: pupil support grant

  EIC—learning mentors and LSUs grant

  Behaviour improvement programme

  EIC—learning mentors and LSUs grant

  Behaviour improvement programme

  Phase 2 BIP LEAs

  Barnsley

  511,429

  1,288,961

  —

  1,354,647

  1,400,000

  Blackburn and Darwen

  529,450

  964,205

  —

  1,012,923

  1,400,000

  Blackpool

  341,660

  692,942

  —

  730,043

  1,400,000

  Doncaster

  623,873

  1,674,751

  —

  1,770,287

  1,400,000

  Ealing

  659,070

  1,204,856

  —

  1,292,611

  1,400,000

  Gateshead

  462,240

  979,835

  —

  1,038,289

  1,400,000

  1372W 1373W

  £

  2002–03

  2003–04

  School inclusion: pupil support grant

  EIC—learning mentors and LSUs grant

  Behaviour improvement programme

  EIC—learning mentors and LSUs grant

  Behaviour improvement programme

  Halton

  331,430

  758,690

  —

  801,326

  1,400,000

  Hartlepool

  268,520

  583,094

  —

  617,446

  1,400,000

  Hull

  861,780

  1,436,525

  —

  1,519,757

  1,400,000

  Leicester

  687,184

  1,489,018

  —

  1,575,459

  1,400,000

  Luton

  500,618

  1,190,790

  —

  1,253,496

  1,400,000

  Middlesbrough

  534,536

  977,844

  —

  1,029,161

  1,400,000

  Newcastle

  722,975

  1,409,663

  —

  1,502,993

  1,400,000

  North Tyneside

  393,724

  927,376

  —

  989,787

  1,400,000

  Redcar and Cleveland

  375,535

  946,362

  —

  995,906

  1,400,000

  Rotherham

  553,997

  2,351,711

  —

  2,436,076

  1,400,000

  Sandwell

  731,915

  1,824,926

  —

  1,922,015

  1,400,000

  Sefton

  577,962

  1,615,924

  —

  1,711,583

  1,400,000

  Solihull

  292,058

  355,985

  —

  639,353

  1,400,000

  South Tyneside

  395,770

  943,890

  —

  995,954

  1,400,000

  St. Helens

  375,174

  992,792

  —

  1,048,358

  1,400,000

  Stockton

  420,955

  1,037,292

  —

  1,096,071

  1,400,000

  Stoke

  654,928

  1,262,134

  —

  1,335,802

  1,400,000

  Sunderland

  859,950

  1,810,263

  —

  1,920,450

  1,400,000

  Wandsworth

  461,599

  1,689,983

  —

  1,743,470

  1,400,000

  Wirral

  952,480

  1,995,629

  2,085,364

  1,400,000

  Notes:

  1. The gaps in:

  (a) the Behaviour Grants columns relate to new LEAs created by local government reorganisation and LEAs that were unsuccessful in their bids for these competitive grants;

  (b) the School Inclusion: Pupil Support (SIPS) Grant columns reflects the fact that Brent did not accept its SIPS allocation in 1999–2000;

  (c) the Excellence in Cities (EIC) columns reflects the fact that EIC grants were phased in over a number of years.

  2. The SIPS Grant ended in 2002–03.

  3. BIP phase I commenced September 2002. BIP phase 2 commenced in April 2003.

  Condover Hall School
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on Condover Hall school. [149773]

  Mr. Miliband
  Further to my previous answers about Condover Hall and to answers given previously by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the situation at the school is unchanged. Condover Hall is proposed for closure as from July this year. We understand RNIB is in discussion with Local Education Authorities placing children at the school about suitable alternative provision.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Spelthorne, dated 9 December 2003, regarding the funding of nursery education at Knowle Park Infant School, Staines; and if he will make a statement. [154196]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  My noble Friend the Baroness Ashton replied to the hon. Member's letter of 9 December on 6 January.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he will provide a substantive reply to the hon. Member for Spelthorne to his letter of 27 November 2003, departmental reference 2003/0068433PO. [154344]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary replied to the hon. Member's letter of 25 November on 12 January.
  1374W

  Criminal Justice Skills Council
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether the plans for a criminal justice skills council include computer forensic and security skills; and if he will make a statement. [152990]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Proposals for a Justice Sector Skills Council (SSC) are due to be considered by the Sector Skills Development Agency's Licence Assessment Panel on 11 February. The proposed SSC covers:

  Community Justice

  Custodial Care

  Police Forces—including Investigative Skills

  Customs and Excise

  Asset Recovery Agency

  Court Service (E and W)

  Crown Prosecution Service (E and W)

  Crown Office and Procurator fiscal (Scotland)

  Scottish Court Service

  NI Court Service

  Dept of Public Prosecutions

  Judges and Magistrates

  Computer Forensics—the use of software in the detection of crime, forms part of investigative skills covered by the Police Force area of the Justice SSC footprint. This is different from molecular or biological forensic analysis carried out in the laboratory which is covered by SEMTA, the SSC for Science, Engineering and Manufacturing Technologies.

  Employers in the security sector are still considering how best they might connect to the Skills for Business network.
  1375W

  Education Review (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations he has received from(a) parents and (b) other involved parties about the secondary schools and sixth form review in Gloucestershire; and if he will make a statement. [153401]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 6 February 2004]: The Department has received approximately 100 letters from parents and other interested parties about the review of school provision in Gloucestershire. The review, and any decision on how to proceed, are matters for local decision. The Secretary of State has no role in the process.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions he has had with representatives of grammar schools in Gloucestershire following the county's education review; and if he will make a statement. [153402]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 6 February 2004]: The Secretary of State has not met any representatives of grammar schools from Gloucestershire. The local authority's review and any reorganisation proposals which may follow will fall to be decided by the local School Organisation Committee, or the Adjudicator if the Committee cannot reach a unanimous decision. The Secretary of State has no role in that decision making process.

  Faith Schools
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what regulations govern the teaching of religious education in faith schools, with particular reference to the teaching of faiths other than that of the religious group sponsoring the school. [153252]

  Mr. Miliband
  The regulations governing religious education in faith schools are set out in Schedule 19, paragraphs 3–6 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1988.

  In summary, this sets out that for voluntary controlled schools, the religious education offered is to be in accordance with the LEA's locally agreed syllabus. However, if parents so request, arrangements should be made for religious education to be provided for their children in accordance with any trust deed or the practice followed before the school became controlled.

  For voluntary aided and special agreement schools, the religious education offered is to be determined by the governors in accordance with the trust deed or (where such provision is not made by a trust deed) in accordance with the tenets of the religion or religious denomination, or in line with practice before the school became a voluntary school. But provision in accordance with the LEA's locally agreed syllabus may be made where parents request it and their children cannot conveniently attend a school where that syllabus is in use, unless the LEA is satisfied that it would be unreasonable to make such provision.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) primary and (b) secondary faith schools there are, broken down by denomination. [153271]
  1376W
  Mr. Miliband
  The number of primary and secondary faith schools by denomination is as follows:

  Primary

  Secondary

  Church of England

  4,513

  207

  Roman Catholic

  1,718

  356

  Christian1

  16

  17

  Jewish

  27

  6

  Methodist

  27

  1

  Muslim

  4

  0

  Sikh

  1

  1

  Seventh Day Adventist

  0

  1

  Quaker

  1

  0

  Greek Orthodox

  1

  0

  1 Non-denominational.

  Further/Higher Education
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much money in his Department's allocation for support for further and higher education is held in ring-fenced budgets for specific initiatives. [152658]

  Alan Johnson
  The Department allocates funds for education and training in the post-16 learning and skills sector to the Learning and Skills Council (LSC). Assumed funding for further education in 2003–04, excluding learner support funds, is £4.7 billion. This includes funding of £187 million for special initiatives to improve quality and delivery and £216 million earmarked for capital investment.

  The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) allocates funds to higher education institutions. For the 2003–04 academic year, HEFCE are allocating total funds of around £5.5 billion, of which £451 million relates to 'special funding' which supports initiatives that are not funded through their recurrent funding methodology, such as the Arts and Humanities Research Board and the Higher Education Innovation Fund; and £364 million is for earmarked capital funding.

  In November 2002 we announced the consolidation of a number of further and higher education funding streams into core funding. In further education we consolidated the funding of pay and staff qualification initiatives into core funding and in higher education we mainstreamed four ring fenced funds 'Golden Hellos', the Promising Researcher Fellowship Scheme, Additional Capital for leading research institutions and Knowledge Exchanges into larger funding allocations. We continue to monitor the number of special funding allocations to ensure that they are appropriately targeted and that demands on institutions are proportionate to the sums involved.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of his Department's budget for further and higher education is allocated to grants for higher and further education institutions. [152659]

  Alan Johnson
  Around 92 per cent. of assumed total spending by the Department on further education in England in 2003–04 goes to institutions, the remainder being spent on student support quality assurance and development in FE. Around 77 per cent. of the total
  1377W
  spending by the Department on higher education in England in 2003–04 goes to institutions, the remainder being spent on student support and other small programmes.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the organisations operating in the field of(a) further and (b) higher education, apart from individual higher education institutions, which receive funding from his Department. [152693]

  Alan Johnson
  In further education, the bodies apart from individual FE institutions receiving funding from the Department are:

  Learning and Skills Council

  Ofsted

  Adult Learning Inspectorate

  Learning and Skills Development Agency

  National Institute for Adult and Continuing Education (NIACE)

  Skill: National Bureau for Students with Disabilities

  Capita

  Sector Skills Development Agency

  Institute for Employment Studies

  Confederation of British Industry

  Centre for Enterprise

  Association of Colleges

  Cambridge Training and Development

  London Language and Literacy Unit (LLLU)

  Manchester LEA

  Association of Learning Providers

  Basic Skills Agency

  Institute of Education, University of London

  Thurrock Primary Care NHS Trust

  Centre for British Teachers (CfBT)

  TUC Learning Services

  TOPSS England.

  Tuition fees and total income for HE institutions in England and Wales. 1999/00 to 2001/02

  1999/2000 Of which:

  HE Institution

  Total income

  HE course fees1

  Credit bearing course

  FE course fees

  Total England

  10,464,649

  2,190,748

  196,709

  35,981

  Anglia Polytechnic University

  77,625

  23,765

  2,524

  103

  Aston University

  45,953

  7,782

  2,012

  0

  Bath Spa University College

  18,000

  3,631

  0

  0

  The University of Bath

  82,198

  15,356

  1,426

  0

  Birkbeck College

  42,389

  8,047

  595

  0

  The University of Birmingham

  244,937

  41,479

  3,828

  0

  Bishop Grosseteste College

  4,604

  873

  63

  0

  Bolton Institute of Higher Education

  28,504

  6,726

  152

  88

  The Arts Institute at Bournemouth2

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Bournemouth University

  47,653

  17,753

  1,517

  0

  The University of Bradford

  64,593

  11,777

  2,448

  5,207

  Bretton Hall

  10,556

  2,276

  0

  27

  The University of Brighton

  72,250

  24,014

  852

  0

  The University of Bristol

  176,922

  24,151

  1,268

  0

  Brunel University

  79,289

  18,074

  334

  169

  Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College

  39,678

  10,665

  127

  39

  1378W
  Mark Haysom, the Learning and Skills Council's Chief Executive, will write to the hon. Gentleman with a list of all organisations, other than FE institutions, operating in the field of further education that receive funding from the council. A copy of his reply will be placed in the House Library.

  In higher education, the bodies receiving funding from the Department or the Higher Education Funding Council for England are:

  Higher Education Funding Council for England

  Teacher Training Agency

  Foundation Degree Forward

  Sector Skills Development Agency

  The Office of the Independent Adjudicator

  Quality Assurance Agency

  Arts and Humanities Research Board

  Student Loans Company

  SKILL (National Bureau for Students with Disabilities)

  Sector Skills Development Agency

  The British Council

  UKCOSA (The Council for International Education)

  The UK Socrates-Erasmus Council

  The UK NARIC (National Academic Recognition and Information Centre)

  The Better Regulation Review Group

  E-Universities Worldwide

  Joint Information Systems Committee

  UK Education and Research Networking Association

  HE Academy

  Leadership Foundation

  Educational Grants Advisory Service

  Universities and Colleges Admissions Service.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total income of each higher education institution was in England and Wales in each of the past three financial years; and how much of the total income came from student tuition fees in each case. [141137]

  Alan Johnson
  The available information is taken from the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) Finance Records and is given in the table.
  1379W

  Tuition fees and total income for HE institutions in England and Wales. 1999/00 to 2001/02

  1999/2000 Of which:

  HE Institution

  Total income

  HE course fees1

  Credit bearing course

  FE course fees

  The University of Cambridge

  372,072

  37,586

  5,062

  0

  The Institute of Cancer Research4

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Canterbury Christ Church University College

  39,850

  15,464

  477

  0

  The University of Central England in Birmingham

  86,595

  27,387

  672

  143

  The University of Central Lancashire

  87,722

  23,670

  764

  426

  Central School of Speech and Drama

  5,462

  1,161

  98

  20

  University of Gloucestershire

  36,732

  7,097

  909

  40

  Chester College of HE

  21,826

  9,702

  122

  0

  University College Chichester

  15,655

  3,582

  321

  0

  City University

  75,832

  33,656

  4,220

  0

  The College of Guidance Studies5

  1,261

  152

  0

  49

  Conservatoire for Dance and Drama2

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Coventry University

  81,217

  24,337

  84

  0

  Cranfield University

  106,690

  12,967

  33,098

  0

  Cumbria Institute of the Arts

  4,957

  712

  19

  0

  Darlington College of Arts

  2,818

  516

  0

  0

  De Montfort University

  113,369

  29,565

  28

  0

  University of Derby

  56,129

  15,435

  0

  717

  University of Durham

  110,976

  18,791

  2,678

  0

  The University of East Anglia

  82,758

  19,993

  1,505

  0

  The University of East London

  60,816

  16,642

  214

  50

  Edge Hill College of Higher Education

  26,817

  8,118

  0

  0

  The University of Essex

  54,949

  13,314

  1,511

  0

  The University of Exeter

  85,603

  16,083

  2,203

  0

  Falmouth College of Arts

  7,516

  2,007

  0

  111

  University of Gloucestershire

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Goldsmiths College

  38,966

  11,488

  258

  82

  The University of Greenwich

  97,092

  23,385

  0

  0

  Harper Adams University College

  13,095

  1,693

  243

  0

  University of Hertfordshire

  96,597

  30,697

  1,065

  201

  Homerton College

  15,026

  1,380

  39

  0

  The University of Huddersfield

  69,033

  13,627

  239

  0

  The University of Hull6

  77,880

  20,651

  138

  0

  Imperial College of Science, Technology

  338,972

  33,338

  1,665

  0

  Institute of Advanced Nursing Education

  9,690

  1,035

  0

  0

  Institute of Education

  33,010

  4,636

  1,832

  0

  The University of Keele

  58,450

  12,689

  0

  0

  The University of Kent at Canterbury

  68,726

  15,134

  106

  764

  Kent Institute of Art & Design

  14,480

  3,703

  14

  254

  King Alfred's College, Winchester

  18,209

  3,367

  831

  0

  King's College London

  312,034

  39,029

  978

  0

  Kingston University

  80,302

  24,889

  970

  77

  The University of Lancaster

  84,013

  14,103

  0

  0

  Leeds Metropolitan University

  87,397

  20,960

  1,549

  366

  The University of Leeds

  258,747

  45,978

  3,759

  0

  The University of Leicester

  122,942

  25,223

  205

  0

  The University of Lincoln

  48,791

  12,189

  385

  0

  Liverpool Hope

  27,702

  4,103

  5,342

  0

  Liverpool John Moores University

  97,568

  24,584

  116

  6

  The University of Liverpool

  179,127

  28,657

  670

  0

  London Business School

  49,690

  15,407

  17,136

  0

  University of London

  131,609

  14,991

  2,289

  1,334

  London Guildhall University

  51,047

  13,510

  529

  459

  The London Institute

  78,075

  18,308

  3,687

  4,482

  London South Bank University

  87,757

  29,363

  1,816

  37

  London School of Economics and Politics

  94,477

  39,102

  1,819

  0

  London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine

  36,565

  5,243

  0

  0

  Loughborough University

  106,725

  16,925

  1,413

  134

  University of Luton

  51,275

  18,169

  457

  -25

  University of Manchester

  297,776

  50,043

  9,895

  0

  The University of Manchester Institute c

  92,695

  17,736

  571

  1,612

  The Manchester Metropolitan University

  128,481

  28,433

  1,001

  29

  Middlesex University

  105,079

  36,320

  0

  0

  The University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  171,306

  20,197

  3,485

  0

  Newman College

  6,068

  1,090

  6

  0

  The University of North London

  59,187

  12,017

  2,565

  0

  North Riding College Higher Education

  6,647

  1,348

  0

  0

  University College Northampton

  39,530

  10,702

  927

  88

  Northern School of Contemporary Dance

  1,195

  141

  0

  13

  The University of Northumbria at Newcastle upon Tyne

  98,148

  34,143

  755

  200

  1380W 1381W

  Tuition fees and total income for HE institutions in England and Wales. 1999/00 to 2001/02

  1999/2000 Of which:

  HE Institution

  Total income

  HE course fees1

  Credit bearing course

  FE course fees

  Norwich School of Art and Design

  4,554

  765

  10

  48

  The Nottingham Trent University

  110,757

  25,317

  2,233

  0

  The University of Nottingham

  217,037

  49,419

  3,565

  0

  The Open University

  274,045

  101,023

  897

  0

  Oxford Brookes University6

  76,580

  28,409

  89

  18

  The University of Oxford

  378,265

  31,588

  8,874

  0

  The University of Plymouth

  99,889

  23,200

  841

  0

  The University of Portsmouth

  83,384

  23,469

  1,179

  97

  Queen Mary and Westfield College

  119,859

  15,489

  946

  0

  Ravensbourne College of Design and Communication

  5,747

  1,398

  0

  53

  The University of Reading

  111,430

  21,853

  1,293

  0

  The College of Ripon and York St John8

  20,274

  5,362

  608

  0

  University of Surrey, Roehampton

  35,796

  8,081

  622

  0

  Rose Bruford College

  5,832

  1,251

  0

  0

  Royal Academy of Music

  8,970

  2,788

  0

  413

  Royal Agricultural College2

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Royal College of Art

  17,533

  3,281

  198

  0

  Royal College of Music

  9,727

  2,106

  639

  0

  Royal Holloway and Bedford New College

  56,313

  11,728

  243

  307

  Royal Northern College of Music

  8,355

  1,497

  0

  0

  The Royal Veterinary College

  23,335

  2,498

  83

  0

  St, George's Hospital Medical School

  47,529

  2,387

  435

  0

  College of St. Mark and St. John

  15,901

  3,116

  1,009

  53

  St. Martin's College

  32,466

  12,377

  0

  0

  St. Mary's College

  14,322

  3,118

  401

  0

  The University of Salford

  110,044

  30,526

  533

  43

  The School of Oriental and African Studies

  32,275

  13,564

  1,126

  0

  The School of Pharmacy

  9,168

  1,608

  85

  0

  Sheffield Hallam University

  107,956

  28,964

  750

  172

  The University of Sheffield

  211,996

  43,582

  2,679

  0

  Southampton Institute

  54,399

  11,400

  4,245

  34

  The University of Southampton

  196,607

  35,479

  1,924

  0

  Staffordshire University

  65,441

  17,126

  781

  17

  The University of Sunderland

  67,935

  12,238

  92

  47

  The Surrey Institute of Art and Design,

  14,799

  3,477

  10

  190

  The University of Surrey

  109,837

  27,319

  1,811

  0

  The University of Sussex

  81,085

  15,686

  329

  0

  The University of Teesside

  55,375

  18,712

  212

  0

  Thames Valley University

  55,666

  22,427

  1,692

  483

  Trinity And All Saints College

  10,865

  2,544

  109

  0

  Trinity College of Music

  4,732

  1,294

  0

  0

  University College London

  382,422

  42,561

  8,980

  0

  The University of Warwick

  165,295

  22,240

  712

  15,852

  University of the West of England, Bristol

  104,287

  21,968

  1,193

  0

  Westminster College7

  6,682

  932

  0

  0

  The University of Westminster

  94,220

  28,703

  2,512

  0

  Wimbledon School of Art

  4,861

  853

  0

  156

  The University of Wolverhampton

  86,844

  23,845

  0

  0

  University College Worcester

  19,785

  7,980

  371

  0

  Writtle College

  11,827

  1,344

  0

  696

  Wye College

  11,519

  2,174

  224

  0

  The University of York

  96,873

  16,650

  2,288

  0

  Total Wales

  598,207

  118,302

  4,373

  98

  University of Wales, Aberystwyth

  58,855

  9,291

  330

  0

  University of Wales, Bangor

  64,198

  13,337

  1,067

  0

  Cardiff University

  143,853

  28.471

  2,439

  0

  University of Wales Institute, Cardiff

  39,461

  7,537

  0

  39

  University of Glamorgan

  62,044

  15,582

  9

  0

  The University of Wales, Lampeter

  9,789

  1,877

  27

  0

  University of Wales College of Medicine

  61,612

  12,906

  0

  0

  University of Wales College, Newport

  24,196

  4,894

  267

  8

  The North-East Wales Institute of High

  17,888

  4,006

  0

  0

  University of Wales, Registry

  6,187

  112

  0

  0

  Royal Welsh College of Music and Drama

  4,414

  898

  168

  0

  Swansea Institute of Higher Education

  15,882

  3,188

  15

  10

  University of Wales, Swansea

  81,515

  14,896

  51

  38

  Trinity College, Carmarthen

  8,313

  1,307

  0

  3

  1382W 1383W

  2000/01 Of which:

  Total income

  HE course fees 1

  Credit bearing course

  FE course fees

  Total England

  11,068,645

  2,335,102

  209,252

  25,975

  Anglia Polytechnic University

  81,414

  24,098

  1,992

  132

  Aston University

  49,632

  8,768

  2,022

  0

  Bath Spa University College

  20,331

  4,314

  0

  0

  The University of Bath

  88,845

  17,194

  1,767

  82

  Birkbeck College

  40,174

  8,854

  520

  0

  The University of Birmingham

  255,440

  43,089

  2,873

  0

  Bishop Grosseteste College

  4,926

  909

  98

  0

  Bolton Institute of Higher Education

  27,796

  6,065

  51

  109

  The Arts Institute at Bournemouth2

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Bournemouth University

  51,861

  20,217

  655

  0

  The University of Bradford

  66,745

  12,506

  1,971

  5,711

  Bretton Hall

  15,732

  2,508

  36

  0

  The University of Brighton

  77,784

  25,774

  1,031

  0

  The University of Bristol

  191,770

  25,999

  1,567

  0

  Brunei University

  83,650

  20,173

  233

  170

  Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College

  41,594

  11,756

  110

  22

  The University of Cambridge

  396,519

  38,628

  8,980

  0

  The Institute of Cancer Research4

  41,954

  853

  0

  0

  Canterbury Christ Church University College

  45,193

  16,201

  171

  0

  The University of Central England in Birmingham

  89,258

  30,089

  804

  138

  The University of Central Lancashire

  92,566

  26,465

  959

  431

  Central School of Speech and Drama

  5,759

  1,152

  134

  15

  University of Gloucestershire

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Chester College of HE

  22,640

  10,754

  82

  0

  University College Chichester

  17,136

  3,685

  353

  0

  City University

  82,071

  38,134

  4,457

  0

  The College of Guidance Studies5

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Conservatoire for Dance and Drama2

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Coventry University

  84,320

  27,165

  5

  0

  Cranfield University

  117,471

  14,964

  35,833

  0

  Cumbria Institute of the Arts

  5,489

  828

  0

  32

  Darlington College of Arts

  3,111

  488

  0

  0

  De Montfort University

  118,386

  31,439

  55

  0

  University of Derby

  55,468

  15,668

  20

  784

  University of Durham

  118,589

  20,449

  1,758

  0

  The University of East Anglia

  90,154

  21,489

  1,348

  0

  The University of East London

  65,894

  18,640

  0

  47

  Edge Hill College of Higher Education

  28,840

  9,901

  0

  0

  The University of Essex

  63,944

  15,327

  1,807

  0

  The University of Exeter

  88,877

  16,542

  1,966

  0

  Falmouth College of Arts

  8,795

  2,209

  0

  23

  University of Gloucestershire

  37,469

  7,872

  855

  40

  Goldsmiths College

  43,857

  12,514

  291

  112

  The University of Greenwich

  98,010

  27,520

  0

  0

  Harper Adams University College

  13,747

  1,746

  220

  0

  University of Hertfordshire

  100,845

  32,041

  922

  225

  Homerton College

  16,193

  1,519

  0

  0

  The University of Huddersfield

  73,671

  14,061

  490

  0

  The University of Hull6

  91,267

  23,651

  209

  0

  Imperial College of Science, Technology

  380,761

  36,352

  3,027

  0

  Institute of Advanced Nursing Education

  8,391

  397

  0

  0

  Institute of Education

  34,034

  4,431

  2,612

  0

  The University of Keele

  61,652

  13,548

  220

  0

  The University of Kent at Canterbury

  70,857

  15,838

  153

  903

  Kent Institute of Art & Design

  14,494

  3,434

  67

  357

  King Alfred's College, Winchester

  17,981

  3,767

  926

  0

  King's College London

  301,544

  40,944

  2,573

  0

  Kingston University

  83,133

  25,886

  1,256

  54

  The University of Lancaster

  89,882

  15,297

  0

  0

  Leeds Metropolitan University

  92,791

  23,432

  1,469

  638

  The University of Leeds

  273,627

  50,060

  3,886

  0

  The University of Leicester

  130,865

  27,165

  197

  0

  The University of Lincoln

  52,935

  12,652

  43

  0

  Liverpool Hope

  29,409

  4,848

  333

  0

  Liverpool John Moores University

  99,273

  25,365

  171

  0

  The University of Liverpool

  192,638

  30,074

  970

  0

  London Business School

  55,674

  18,278

  18,683

  0

  University of London

  92,128

  1,884

  1,411

  0

  London Guildhall University

  52,441

  14,407

  1,087

  900

  The London Institute

  83,474

  19,868

  4,156

  5,361

  1384W 1385W

  2000/01 Of which:

  Total income

  HE course fees 1

  Credit bearing course

  FE course fees

  London South Bank University

  98,496

  32,933

  2,663

  43

  London School of Economics and Politics

  98,219

  39,013

  2,099

  0

  London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine

  41,042

  5,187

  0

  0

  Loughborough University

  114,847

  18,696

  970

  103

  University of Luton

  49,033

  18,206

  -7

  12

  University of Manchester

  315,604

  55,735

  12,053

  0

  The University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology

  104,089

  18,714

  439

  1,601

  The Manchester Metropolitan University

  132,869

  29,665

  771

  22

  Middlesex University

  113,668

  41,390

  0

  0

  The University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  189,347

  22,824

  3,738

  0

  Newman College

  6,388

  1,224

  0

  0

  The University of North London

  64,355

  14,569

  2,581

  0

  North Riding College Higher Education

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  University College Northampton

  41,057

  11,334

  1,089

  116

  Northern School of Contemporary Dance

  1,387

  143

  0

  11

  The University of Northumbria at Newcastle upon Tyne

  99,669

  38,641

  1,009

  153

  Norwich School of Art and Design

  4,545

  795

  11

  52

  The Nottingham Trent University

  114,164

  26,534

  0

  2,495

  The University of Nottingham

  241,493

  54,975

  3,973

  0

  The Open University

  289,977

  100,471

  1,362

  0

  Oxford Brookes University6

  87,508

  29,604

  1,016

  23

  The University of Oxford

  407,723

  33,934

  7,787

  0

  The University of Plymouth

  102,748

  25,640

  545

  52

  The University of Portsmouth

  85,178

  24,185

  1,073

  104

  Queen Mary and Westrield College

  124,318

  16,798

  1,330

  0

  Ravensbourne College of Design and Communication

  6,386

  1,673

  0

  50

  The University of Reading

  117,985

  23,792

  618

  0

  The College of Ripon and York St John8

  20,951

  5,744

  771

  0

  University of Surrey. Roehampton

  38,113

  8,768

  718

  0

  Rose Bruford College

  4,170

  1,179

  36

  0

  Royal Academy of Music

  10,743

  2,946

  0

  441

  Royal Agricultural College2

  7,672

  944

  0

  0

  Royal College of Art

  18,258

  3,351

  228

  0

  Royal College of Music

  10,353

  2,169

  675

  0

  Royal Holloway and Bedford New College

  59,364

  11,753

  360

  923

  Royal Northern College of Music

  8,884

  1,571

  0

  0

  The Royal Veterinary College

  25,846

  2,799

  89

  0

  St. George's Hospital Medical School

  50,351

  2,547

  451

  0

  College of St. Mark and St. John

  14,697

  3,166

  629

  49

  St. Martin's College

  33,863

  13,053

  0

  0

  St. Mary's College

  14,420

  3,013

  395

  0

  The University of Salford

  111,151

  32,131

  1,257

  0

  The School of Oriental and African Studies

  32,908

  13,949

  1,241

  0

  The School of Pharmacy

  9,478

  1,798

  48

  0

  Sheffield Hallam University

  114,203

  29,728

  802

  190

  The University of Sheffield

  224,599

  46,068

  3,094

  0

  Southampton Institute

  54,570

  10,781

  4,108

  386

  The University of Southampton

  214,351

  38,044

  1,286

  34

  Staffordshire University

  71,043

  17,982

  1,036

  1

  The University of Sunderland

  71,305

  14,263

  95

  7

  The Surrey Institute of Art and Design,

  16,514

  3,917

  27

  201

  The University of Surrey

  116,524

  28,358

  2,127

  0

  The University of Sussex

  85,784

  16,158

  314

  0

  The University of Teesside

  58,314

  20,060

  15

  0

  Thames Valley University

  54,727

  22,808

  1,708

  698

  Trinity And All Saints College

  11,429

  2,608

  166

  0

  Trinity College of Music

  5,506

  1,400

  0

  0

  University College London

  412,283

  44,734

  10,499

  0

  The University of Warwick

  174,451

  36,338

  4,550

  1106

  University of the West of England, Bristol

  107,431

  22,227

  879

  24

  Westminster College7

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  The University of Westminster

  95,055

  29,101

  2,924

  0

  Wimbledon School of Art

  5,188

  1,075

  0

  0

  The University of Wolverhampton

  90,252

  24,395

  0

  0

  University College Worcester

  19,060

  6,560

  639

  0

  Writtle College

  13,701

  1,439

  0

  792

  Wye College

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  The University of York

  103,539

  17,941

  3,080

  0

  Total Wales

  641,060

  125,657

  4,715

  90

  University of Wales, Aberystwyth

  62,665

  9,372

  409

  0

  1386W 1387W

  2000/01 Of which:

  Total income

  HE course fees1

  Credit bearing course

  FE course fees

  University of Wales, Bangor

  67,149

  13,948

  1,107

  0

  Cardiff University

  156,819

  30,299

  2,646

  0

  University of Wales Institute, Cardiff

  44,175

  9,306

  0

  34

  University of Glamorgan

  64,820

  16,118

  24

  0

  The University of Wales, Lampeter

  9,715

  1,708

  7

  0

  University of Wales College of Medicine

  68,058

  13,745

  0

  0

  University of Wales College, Newport

  26,010

  4,257

  180

  2

  The North-East Wales Institute of High

  18,771

  4,045

  0

  0

  University of Wales, Registry

  6,601

  0

  0

  0

  Royal Welsh College of Music and Drama

  6,412

  972

  188

  0

  Swansea Institute of Higher Education

  17,528

  3,508

  126

  10

  University of Wales, Swansea

  83,248

  16,999

  28

  42

  Trinity College, Carmarthen

  9,063

  1,380

  0

  2

  2001/02 Of which:

  Total income

  HE course fees1

  Credit bearing course

  FE course fees

  Total England

  11,839,076

  2,561,139

  219,264

  24,887

  Anglia Polytechnic University

  89,496

  25,690

  1,930

  51

  Aston University

  53,392

  11,676

  1,096

  0

  Bath Spa University College

  21,217

  4,602

  0

  0

  The University of Bath

  101,254

  19,549

  1,751

  0

  Birkbeck College

  46,355

  10,769

  939

  0

  The University of Birmingham

  279,521

  48,540

  3,135

  0

  Bishop Grosseteste College

  5,395

  1,069

  73

  0

  Bolton Institute of Higher Education

  26,984

  6,516

  31

  98

  The Arts Institute at Bournemouth2

  8,173

  1,329

  98

  316

  Bournemouth University

  57,443

  22,262

  887

  0

  The University of Bradford

  72,211

  14,336

  1,745

  6,742

  Bretton Hall

  The University of Brighton

  80,642

  25,895

  967

  0

  The University of Bristol

  209,265

  28,940

  1,700

  0

  Brunei University

  88,721

  21,656

  244

  174

  Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College

  41,792

  11,903

  294

  25

  The University of Cambridge

  446,755

  43,113

  9,714

  0

  The Institute of Cancer Research4

  46,656

  942

  0

  0

  Canterbury Christ Church University College

  50,816

  17,376

  233

  0

  The University of Central England in Birmingham

  94,558

  34,455

  2,409

  172

  The University of Central Lancashire

  98,000

  29,663

  412

  220

  Central School of Speech and Drama

  6,096

  1,195

  156

  2

  University of Gloucestershire

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Chester College of HE

  24,760

  11,235

  38

  0

  University College Chichester

  17,694

  3,518

  328

  0

  City University

  100,741

  50,309

  4,681

  0

  The College of Guidance Studies5

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Conservatoire for Dance and Drama2

  3,578

  557

  0

  0

  Coventry University

  92,184

  29,125

  17

  222

  Cranfield University

  122,039

  15,355

  35,516

  0

  Cumbria Institute of the Arts

  5,894

  923

  0

  17

  Darlington College of Arts

  3,356

  545

  0

  0

  De Montfort University

  113,714

  30,064

  30

  0

  University of Derby

  62,121

  15,978

  16

  704

  University of Durham

  129,219

  21,196

  2,070

  0

  The University of East Anglia

  98,412

  24,235

  929

  0

  The University of East London

  66,525

  19,973

  0

  0

  Edge Hill College of Higher Education

  31,025

  4,950

  0

  0

  The University of Essex

  68,451

  17,188

  1,842

  0

  The University of Exeter

  96,202

  17,979

  1,979

  0

  Falmouth College of Arts

  9,937

  2,236

  0

  53

  University of Gloucestershire

  37,430

  8,415

  754

  26

  Goldsmiths College

  44,340

  13,375

  257

  84

  The University of Greenwich

  106,255

  30,845

  0

  0

  Harper Adams University College

  15,393

  1,746

  239

  0

  University of Hertfordshire

  105,660

  34,086

  1,187

  281

  Homerton College

  5,369

  0

  0

  0

  The University of Huddersfleld

  76,131

  13,793

  1,715

  0

  The University of Hull6

  94,481

  26,154

  0

  0

  Imperial College of Science, Technology

  381,230

  40,375

  2,128

  0

  Institute of Advanced Nursing Education

  9,625

  601

  0

  0

  1388W 1389W

  2001/02 of which:

  Total income

  HE course fees1

  Credit bearing course

  FE course fees

  Institute of Education

  37,561

  4,513

  3,929

  0

  The University of Keele

  64,615

  14,105

  317

  0

  The University of Kent at Canterbury

  77,864

  18,068

  1,038

  0

  Kent Institute of Art & Design

  14,834

  3,440

  98

  257

  King Alfred's College, Winchester

  18,172

  4,648

  232

  0

  King's College London

  318,815

  46,063

  2,196

  0

  Kingston University

  90,716

  29,220

  1,383

  47

  The University of Lancaster

  95,437

  18,010

  0

  0

  Leeds Metropolitan University

  101,218

  25,605

  2,273

  629

  The University of Leeds

  302,607

  56,286

  5,093

  0

  The University of Leicester

  145,842

  31,338

  175

  0

  The University of Lincoln

  59,230

  10,065

  5

  112

  Liverpool Hope

  31,225

  5,675

  559

  0

  Liverpool John Moores University

  103,618

  26,205

  48

  0

  The University of Liverpool

  205,650

  32,291

  797

  0

  London Business School

  61,918

  23,667

  19,938

  0

  University of London

  97,634

  1,856

  1,734

  0

  London Guildhall University

  54,539

  15,810

  837

  154

  The London Institute

  91,692

  22,979

  4,865

  5,699

  London South Bank University

  94,760

  35,778

  3,185

  52

  London School of Economics and Politics

  104,344

  45,362

  2,607

  0

  London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine

  50,210

  5,518

  0

  0

  Loughborough University

  121,869

  21,270

  819

  101

  University of Luton

  51,075

  20,876

  230

  1

  University of Manchester

  328,574

  58,593

  12,020

  0

  The University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology

  117,067

  20,431

  245

  1,625

  The Manchester Metropolitan University

  139,644

  32,366

  801

  31

  Middlesex University

  118,480

  43,283

  0

  0

  The University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  212,929

  26,086

  3,680

  0

  Newman College

  7,129

  1,325

  11

  0

  The University of North London

  69,669

  18,855

  2,746

  0

  North Riding College Higher Education

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  University College Northampton

  42,624

  11,945

  1,801

  432

  Northern School of Contemporary Dance

  1,709

  185

  0

  12

  The University of Northumbria at Newcastle upon Tyne

  109,034

  40,258

  1,190

  223

  Norwich School of Art and Design

  4,734

  852

  11

  60

  The Nottingham Trent University

  2,078

  0

  —

  —

  The University of Nottingham

  265,302

  61,588

  3,217

  0

  The Open University

  302,268

  104,667

  857

  0

  Oxford Brookes University6

  90,704

  32,058

  1,076

  23

  The University of Oxford

  426,549

  37,619

  7,878

  0

  The University of Plymouth

  112,942

  27,497

  526

  186

  The University of Portsmouth

  92,623

  27,693

  1,225

  137

  Queen Mary and Westfield College

  139,604

  20,720

  1,387

  0

  Ravensbourne College of Design and Communication

  7,188

  1,639

  0

  36

  The University of Reading

  23,703

  2,012

  0

  The College of Ripon and York St John8

  21,783

  6,540

  545

  0

  University of Surrey, Roehampton

  40,200

  9,247

  447

  0

  Rose Bruford College

  4,227

  1,126

  30

  0

  Royal Academy of Music

  11,720

  3,126

  0

  476

  Royal Agricultural College2

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Royal College of Art

  19,339

  3,680

  235

  0

  Royal College of Music

  11,537

  2,045

  717

  0

  Royal Holloway and Bedford New College

  63,189

  14,206

  347

  1,037

  Royal Northern College of Music

  9,294

  1,792

  0

  0

  The Royal Veterinary College

  27,954

  3,037

  95

  0

  St. George's Hospital Medical School

  54,188

  6,295

  496

  0

  College of St. Mark and St. John

  14,698

  3,268

  645

  12

  St. Martin's College

  35,369

  11,863

  734

  0

  St. Mary's College

  14,792

  3,122

  102

  0

  The University of Salford

  115,154

  37,694

  292

  57

  The School of Oriental and African Studies

  33,945

  14,215

  1,342

  0

  The School of Pharmacy

  10,731

  2,017

  82

  0

  Sheffield Hallam University

  119,810

  32,866

  862

  239

  The University of Sheffield

  237,988

  51,250

  2,758

  0

  Southampton Institute

  56,301

  11,679

  4,457

  514

  The University of Southampton

  233,796

  41,105

  1,876

  0

  Staffordshire University

  74,758

  18,147

  1,043

  0

  The University of Sunderland

  73,325

  15,047

  1,517

  9

  The Surrey Institute of Art and Design,

  18,123

  4,058

  100

  269

  1390W 1391W

  2001/02 of which:

  Total income

  HE course fees1

  Credit bearing course

  FE course fees

  The University of Surrey

  131,453

  31,987

  2,311

  0

  The University of Sussex

  94,626

  17,562

  499

  0

  The University of Teesside

  63,351

  21,884

  21

  0

  Thames Valley University

  60,991

  24,838

  2,077

  684

  Trinity And All Saints College

  11,910

  2,684

  131

  0

  Trinity College of Music

  6,561

  1,488

  433

  0

  University College London

  431,510

  48,877

  10,202

  0

  The University of Warwick

  191,479

  44,885

  1,738

  1,804

  University of the West of England, Bristol

  114,428

  22,715

  888

  19

  Westminster College7

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  The University of Westminster

  102,825

  32,859

  2,531

  0

  Wimbledon School of Art

  5,540

  1,130

  0

  0

  The University of Wolverhampton

  96,658

  26,281

  0

  0

  University College Worcester

  20,059

  6,702

  721

  0

  Writtle College

  15,569

  1,560

  0

  763

  Wye College

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  The University of York

  113,319

  19,616

  2,349

  0

  Total Wales

  696,478

  136,733

  5,292

  115

  University of Wales, Aberystwyth

  68,926

  10,180

  575

  0

  University of Wales, Bangor

  75,235

  15,004

  1,179

  0

  Cardiff University

  167,906

  32,343

  2,942

  0

  University of Wales Institute, Cardiff

  45,629

  9,971

  0

  63

  University of Glamorgan

  70,459

  17,519

  29

  0

  The University of Wales, Lampeter

  9,842

  1,779

  8

  0

  University of Wales College of Medicine

  77,368

  15,240

  0

  0

  University of Wales College, Newport

  27,785

  4,738

  196

  2

  The North-East Wales Institute of High

  20,728

  4,630

  0

  0

  University of Wales, Registry

  6,969

  120

  0

  0

  Royal Welsh College of Music and Drama

  6,632

  992

  207

  0

  Swansea Institute of Higher Education

  17,893

  3,801

  138

  0

  University of Wales, Swansea

  91,580

  18,943

  18

  48

  Trinity College, Carmarthen

  9,526

  1,473

  0

  2

  1 HE course fees include home and EC domiciled students studying full-time and part-time at postgraduate and undergraduate level, plus overseas (non-EC) domiciled students. Covers all fee income, including the £1,125 for full-time undergraduate courses.

  2 New institution

  3 Blank cells indicate no Finance Return in 2001/02.

  4 New institution in 2000/01.

  5 The College of Guidance Studies merged with Canterbury Christ Church College in 2000/01.

  6 North Riding College merged with the University of Hull in 2000/01.

  7 Westminster College merged with Oxford Brookes University in 2000/01.

  8 The College of Ripon and York St John changed it's name to York St John College in the academic year 2000/01.

  Note:

  Zero cells indicate that the institution submitted a separate Finance Return

  Source:

  HESA Finance Record

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) if he will list the departments which receive higher education research grant funding in(a) dance, (b) drama, (c) performing arts and (d) sports-related studies; [152626]

  (2)if he will list the research ratings under the two most recent research assessment exercises of each higher education institution and department in the UK; [152627]

  (3)how many higher education institutions will receive more than £1 million in research grant from Government in 2003–04; [152636]

  (4)what his policy is on the provision of research funding to departments rated 4 after the next research assessment exercise; [152638]

  (5)whether it is his policy that some universities should cease to carry out research. [152687]
  1392W
  Alan Johnson
  The following—List A—lists the 23 higher education institutions (HEIs) which will receive recurrent research grant funding for dance, drama and performing arts in 2003/04. List B—lists the 27 HEIs which will receive funding for sports-related studies in 2003/04.

  List A: Institutions receiving Quality-related funding for Dance, Drama and Performing Arts1 Departments in 2003/04

  Higher Education Institutions:

  University of Warwick

  University of Bristol

  University of Reading

  University of Manchester

  University of Kent at Canterbury

  Royal Holloway, University of London

  Nottingham Trent University

  University of Surrey

  University of Hull

  1393W

  University of Exeter

  University of East Anglia

  University of Birmingham

  Lancaster University

  Goldsmiths College

  University of Surrey, Roehamptom

  University of Huddersfield

  University College Worcester

  University College Chichester

  Middlesex University

  Manchester Metropolitan University

  De Montfort University

  York St. John College

  University College Northampton

  King Alfred's College, Winchester

  Dartington College of Arts

  Bretton Hall

  Bournemouth University

  1 In the last two Research Assessment Exercises, Dance, Drama and Performing Arts were classed as the same Unit of Assessment and attract research funding in the same way.

  List B: Institutions receiving Quality-related funding in Sports-related Studies Departments in 2003/04 Higher Education Institutions:

  University of Birmingham

  Manchester Metropolitan University

  Loughborough University

  Liverpool John Moores University

  University of Exeter

  University of Sheffield

  University of Bristol

  University of Brighton

  Sheffield Hallam University

  De Montfort University

  University of Wolverhampton

  University of Leeds

  University of Bath

  University College Chichester

  Staffordshire University

  South Bank University

  Leeds Metropolitan University

  University of Surrey Roehampton

  University of Sunderland

  University of Luton

  University of Gloucestershire

  Canterbury Christ Church University College

  Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College

  Details of the research ratings awarded in the two most recent Research Assessment Exercises (RAE) are set out in the documents '2001 Research Assessment Exercise: The Outcome' and '1996 Research Assessment Exercise: The Outcome', published by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). Copies are available in the House of Commons Library.

  72 HEIs will receive more than £1 million in research grant from the HEFCE in 2003–04.

  The UK higher education funding bodies carried out a joint consultation last year on the review of research assessment undertaken by Sir Gareth Roberts.
  1394W
  Following detailed consideration of the responses to the consultation exercise, an announcement on the way forward is expected from HEFCE and the other funding bodies shortly.

  The Government are committed to supporting and encouraging the highest quality research within available resources to ensure that we continue to compete internationally. High quality research departments are located in a wide spread of institutions and it is not the Government's policy to prevent any departments or institutions from conducting research. Institutions, as independent, autonomous bodies, must consider their strengths and decide the best focus for their academic direction and institutional mission.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the remits are of(a) the Higher Education Funding Council for England and (b) the proposed Arts and Humanities Research Council in the future support of arts and humanities research. [152628]

  Alan Johnson
  The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) allocates Quality Related (QR) funding for research to Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in England selectively, having regard to assessments of research quality in all academic disciplines. This funding is paid to HEIs as part of a block grant. Within the dual support system, it is intended to support the physical infrastructure for research and the costs of permanent research staff time including time devoted to curiosity-driven research in line with the institution's mission and priorities. It therefore complements funding the institution receives in the form of grant from Research Councils.

  The responsibilities of the Arts and Humanities Research Council will be to carry out, facilitate, encourage and support research and postgraduate training in the arts and humanities. Its responsibilities will parallel those of the existing Scientific Research Councils in supporting specific research projects and postgraduate programmes of work in higher education institutions and related bodies in all parts of the United Kingdom.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether it is his policy that Government funding for increases in the number of students in higher education should be directed at the provision of foundation degree places rather than full honours degrees. [153067]

  Alan Johnson
  As set out in the White Paper "The Future of Higher Education" and the January 2003 grant letter to the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) we are committed to the expansion of Foundation Degrees while recognising existing commitments to growth in honours degree provision.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on incentives provided to higher education institutions for collaboration between departments or institutions. [152637]

  Alan Johnson
  The principal mechanism for encouraging greater collaboration between higher education departments and institutions is the Strategic
  1395W
  Development Fund, operated by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). The fund supports various forms of collaboration including, for example, institutional mergers, strategic alliances and incentives for developing innovative research programmes.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether it is his policy that Regional Development Agencies should have a statutory involvement in the provision of(a) higher education and (b) higher education research. [152702]

  Alan Johnson
  Regional Development Agencies' statutory purposes are: to further economic development and regeneration of their area, to promote business efficiency, investment and competitiveness in their area, to promote employment in their area, to enhance development and application of skills relevant to employment in their area, and to contribute to sustainable development in the UK.

  The Future of Higher Education White Paper outlines the growing role that RDAs have in HE and other knowledge transfer programmes and in addition outlines the following proposals:

  An enhanced role for the RDAs in matching supply and demand for higher education. RDAs already have a direct input into determining new higher education provision in their regions to ensure it meets regional priorities;

  To involve RDAs further in the Aim Higher campaign, to help address regional needs for access to higher education;

  To encourage RDAs to play a proactive role in developing the work of the New Technology Institutes (NTIs), including through funding; and

  To ask RDAs to take responsibility for galvanising the business community to work harder to make best use of the opportunities offered by higher education; and to play a particular role in helping small and medium-sized enterprises articulate their needs, and make links with higher education.

  Our research policy treats research as a national priority, and therefore funds the best research wherever it exists. The Higher Education Funding Council for England distributes research funding to universities by a formula according to the quality and volume of their research as measured in periodic Research Assessment Exercises. There is no explicit regional element in the formula and to introduce one might weaken our ability to compete in the international marketplace.

  The RDAs are instrumental as drivers for regional growth and development, often in partnership with higher education institutions within their respective regions. This can involve supporting the research base within their region. However, this is a matter for the RDAs themselves to decide.

  Religious Symbols
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations he has received from the general public concerning the proposed policy in France of banning all religious symbols in public schools. [153532]
  1396W
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Department for Education and Skills has received no representations from members of the general public concerning the proposed policy in France of banning all religious symbols in schools.

  School Absenteeism
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many half-days have been lost owing to unauthorised absence of pupils in(a) East Midlands and (b) West Derbyshire in each year since 1997 (i) in absolute terms and (ii) as a proportion of the total number of half-days. [150879]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information requested is shown in the following table.

  East Midlands

  West Derbyshire

  Academic Year

  Number of half days lost due to authorised absences

  Percentage of half days lost

  Number of half days lost due to authorised absences

  Percentage of half days lost

  1997–98

  1,347,350

  0.8

  11,003

  0.4

  1998–99

  1,343,440

  0.8

  14,437

  0.4

  1999–2000

  1,291,409

  0.7

  12,210

  0.4

  2000–01

  1,357,059

  0.8

  15,625

  0.5

  2001–02

  1,419,100

  0.8

  15,849

  0.5

  2002–03

  1,411,852

  0.8

  15,186

  0.4

  Notes:

  1. Figures relate to maintained primary and secondary schools but exclude maintained special schools and CTCs.

  2. Figures cover pupils that were absent between September and May for each year

  Sex Education
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his policy is on giving a social and moral context to sex advice offered to under 16-year-olds. [153667]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Our policy on Sex and Relationship Education (SRE) is clearly set out in our Guidance published in July 2000. Our Guidance clearly states that 'the objective of SRE is to help and support young people through their physical, emotional and moral development and prepare them for adult life. A successful programme firmly embedded in Personal, Social and Health Education, sets a strong social and moral context to help young people develop personal and social skills and understand the importance of attitudes and values such as the importance of family life.'

  Staying-on Rates (Nottingham)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what contribution has been made by(a) further education colleges in the Nottingham area and (b) the Nottingham Learning and Skills Council to the improvement of staying-on rates at schools in Nottingham North since 1997. [152955]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  School sixth form provision is a matter for the Learning and Skills Council (LSC). It is for them to comment on the specific contribution of the FE sector and the local LSC to improving staying on rates at schools in Nottingham North since 1997. I have
  1397W
  asked their Chief Executive, Mark Haysom, to write to the hon. Gentleman with the information requested and place a copy of his reply in the Library.

  Student Finance
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what calculations he made to reach the conclusion in the Regulatory Impact Assessment of the Higher Education Bill that the projected future cost of the student living cost loan subsidy will be 27 per cent. [152567]

  Alan Johnson
  The Regulatory Impact Assessment states that the future cost of maintenance loans is estimated at 29 per cent. of the value of loans advanced, which comprises the cost of loan write-offs and the interest subsidy. It was estimated using a simulation model of the distribution of future maintenance loan debt, graduate earnings and student loan repayments.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much total additional money he estimates will have to be advanced each year to students as student loans in order to meet the Government's recently announced increase to maximum loan levels. [152782]

  Alan Johnson
  We estimate that the additional amount of maintenance loan advanced as a result of the higher maximum loan rates will be around £160 million per annum in cash terms in 2006/07 terms.

  As stated in the Regulatory Impact Assessment published on 8 January, the resource cost1 of raising the maximum rate of maintenance loan to match the basic living costs expenditure of the mid-range student is estimated at £65 million in 2006/07 terms. This is the resource cost to the Government of both the additional amount of maintenance loan advanced (given above) and the resulting impact on the repayments of fee loans.

  £

  Category of student

  Maximum loan in 2004/05

  Maximum loan in 2006/07 (before increase) at 2.5 per cent. inflation per year

  New maximum loan for 2006/07

  First and second year students

  Living away from home outside London (max.)

  4,095

  4,300

  4,405

  Living at home (max.)

  3,240

  3,405

  3,415

  Living away from home in London (max.)

  5,050

  5,305

  6,170

  Final year students

  Living away from home outside London (max.)

  3,555

  3,735

  4,075

  Living at home (max.)

  2,830

  2,975

  3,085

  Living away from home in London (max.)

  4,380

  4,600

  5,620

  The minimum means tested student loan for each category of student, as now, will be 75 per cent. of the maximum eg £3,305 for students living away from home outside London in 2006/07 instead of £3,070 in 2004/05. The loan reduces from £4,405 to £3,305 as parental or spouse income rises from about £33,500 to about £44,000. The minimum loan is available to every eligible student regardless of family income.

  Where under our proposals low income students receive the maximum combined grant of £2,700, which is in addition to their continuing entitlement to loans, we
  1398W
  1 Estimates of the resource cost of the loans represent the real economic cost to the Government of providing the loans and take into account the forecast loan repayments, the foregone interest and any loan write-offs.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether students who receive payments as a grant rather than a fee remission will be entitled to receive the maximum student loan under the Government's proposals. [152783]

  Alan Johnson
  Details of the proposed arrangements are set out in the Government's discussion paper "Moving toward a single combined grant for higher education". Copies of the paper were placed in the Library of the House on 19 January; it is also available on the Department for Education and Skills website.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much grant part-time students will be entitled to under the terms of the Higher Education Bill. [152785]

  Alan Johnson
  The Higher Education Bill does not specify the levels of financial support available to part-time students. Levels are set out in the student support regulations which are made annually. In 2004–05 a new package of support is being introduced for part-time students. Students on low incomes will be able to get a grant of up to £575 for fees and a grant of up to £250 for course costs.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what changes the Government are making to(a) the minimum student loan level and(b) the levels of loan available to students at intermediate levels of family income between the maximum and minimum loan levels. [152786]

  Alan Johnson
  The proposed new means tested student loan figures are given below. The maximum student loan will be increased to meet the basic living costs expenditure of the mid-range student in the recent Student Income and Expenditure Survey.

  currently expect them to have access to loans worth the maximum entitlement to loan as in the table less £850. Details of the proposed arrangements are set out in the Government's discussion paper "Moving toward a single combined grant for higher education".

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the change in the length of time that students will take to repay an average loan following the increase in the repayment threshold from £10,000 to £15,000. [152787]
  1399W
  Alan Johnson
  The estimate of the length of time to repay is the average across all students who take out a loan. This is different from the length of time it will take for some notional average graduate to repay. The estimate is from a model which simulates student loan repayments, based on assumed distributions of: length of time in Higher Education; size of means-tested loan taken out; size of fee loan, net of any fee remission; and borrower lifetime earnings. Some borrowers will repay more quickly than this estimated average and some less so.

  As part of a package of reforms announced with the introduction of the Higher Education Bill, any debt outstanding after 25 years would be written-off. The threshold would increase to £15,000 in April 2005 and be increased with inflation from April 2010 onwards. The average time to repay would be around 13 years. Under the same approach to uprating the threshold, the average time to repay would be around 11 years with a £10,000 threshold.

  The answer above is based on modelling on the basis of a separate fee grant and HE grant. Once the grants are combined, as announced by the Secretary of State to the House on 27 January 2004, the balance between

  Definition of basic living items

  Broad basic expenditure groups

  Detailed items

  Accommodation

  Rent/mortgage payments; council tax; utility bills.

  Household

  Food; non-alcoholic drink; household items; TV licence; land-line telephone bills; furniture; household appliances over £50; washing machine; fridge; contents insurance.

  Travel

  To university; to parental home; field trips

  Course costs

  Allowance of £260 per year (includes books; equipment; amenity fees; photocopying; stationery).

  Personal

  Clothes; footwear; glasses/contact lenses; medical treatment; personal items; entertainment spending allowance of £300 per year.

  We recognise that on top of basic living items most students will want to buy goods and services that other young people want. The SIES shows that they manage this through supplementing student loans (where taken out) with a mixture of parental support, paid work and additional borrowing.

  Undergraduates
  Lembit ÖOpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many undergraduate students in Wales have declared themselves bankrupt in each year since 1992; and if he will make a statement. [153716]

  Alan Johnson
  The following table shows the number of student loan borrowers, both graduates and undergraduates, who have had bankruptcy orders made against them since 1992.

  There are no figures showing undergraduates as a separate group.

  Bankrupt year1

  Number of borrowers2,3,4,5

  1992

  0

  1993

  1

  1994

  2

  1995

  4

  1996

  6

  1997

  7

  1998

  2

  1400W
  maintenance loan and fee loan will be slightly different, though the impact on the overall time to repay is likely to be small.

  Student Living Costs
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what definition he uses of what constitutes basic living costs for the average student. [153400]

  Alan Johnson
  We have based the increased rates of maintenance loan on the expenditure on basic living items for the average student in each loan category, as shown in the 2002/03 Student Income and Expenditure Survey (SIES). Students studying in London who live independently will benefit the most.

  SIES showed that there is huge variability in students' level of expenditure. We have derived the following standardised list of basic living items based upon a list compiled by a departmental advisory group charged with overseeing the guidance for Higher Education Institution staff when considering applications for hardship support1. This definition is more generous than the definition of 'essential' expenditure that was used in the 1995/06 and 1998/09 SIES.

  1 The Advisory Group on Student Discretionary Funds (AGSDF)

  Bankrupt year1

  Number of borrowers2,3,4,5

  1999

  6

  2000

  16

  2001

  22

  2002

  21

  2003

  648

  Total

  135

  1 Calendar year in which the borrower became bankrupt.

  2 Data shows the number of student loan borrowers.

  3 Includes borrowers who may or may not have graduated from
  their course.

  4 Includes all types of students (including PGCE—Postgraduate Certificate of Education students).

  5 Data covers both types of student loan—Mortgage Style (including loans sold to the private sector) and Income Contingent.

  6 The increase in the numbers of bankruptcies in 2003 seems to be as a result of greater public awareness that students loans are provable in bankruptcy.

  Source:

  Student Loans Company.

  Student Funding
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether the Government is required to provide identical funding to UK students and students from other EU countries choosing to study in the UK under all circumstances. [153065]
  1401W
  Alan Johnson
  The Government are required, under Article 12 of the EC Treaty, to provide tuition fee support for EU nationals in a way that does not discriminate compared to UK nationals. This requirement does not extend to providing access to student loans or grants for maintenance purposes for EU students.

  Student Incentives
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the £30 million budget set aside for further education student incentives. [153068]

  Alan Johnson
  As announced in the White Paper "21st Century Skills: Realising Our Potential" in July 2003, we are currently piloting an Adult Learning Grant (ALG) in 10 local Learning and Skills Council areas. We are trialling the approach and will evaluate the impact of 1402W
  the pilots to establish, in the light of the conclusions of the next spending review, the best operational design for ALGs, with the intention of implementing a national roll-out of ALGs.

  No announcement has been made on the budget for 2004/05 for the ALG pilots.

  University Access
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether the access regulator will hold responsibility for the allocation formula for the widening participation budget. [152778]

  Alan Johnson
  No. Responsibility for the widening participation and retention allocation will remain with the Higher Education Funding Council for England. The Director for Fair Access will be a regulatory, not funding body.
  1403W

HEALTH

  Acute Hospital Trusts
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who is responsible for meeting the costs where the activity of an acute hospitals trust exceeds the amount commissioned by primary care trusts without the agreement of those primary care trusts. [152310]

  Mr. Hutton
  Discussions about commissioning arrangements are undertaken locally between national health service trusts and primary care trusts and if required the relevant strategic health authority. However, NHS trusts are responsible for balancing their income and expenditure in year.

  Adolescent Medicine
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many specialists in adolescent medicine there are in England. [152738]

  Mr. Hutton
  There is not a specific specialty called adolescent medicine. There are a number of specialties that specialise in the treatment of pre-adult conditions.

  The table shows the number of consultants, employed in the National Health Service in England, in child and adolescent psychiatry, paediatric dentistry, paediatric surgery and within the paediatric group.

  Hospital, Public Health Medicine and Community Health services (HCHS): Medical and dental consultants within specialties that work with children

  England at 30 June 2003

  Numbers (headcount)

  Child and adolescent psychiatry

  500

  Paediatric dentistry

  26

  Paediatric surgery

  105

  Paediatric cardiology

  63

  Paediatrics

  1,700

  Paediatric neurology

  38

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census

  Allergies
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much NHS funding is provided for the diagnosis and treatment of allergies; what plans he has to increase this amount; and if he will make a statement; [153364]

  (2) what special NHS treatment centres are available for people with allergies in (a) England and (b) Gloucestershire. [153365]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Information on national health service funding for the diagnosis and treatment of allergies is not collected centrally. Health authorities (HAs) and primary care trusts receive unified allocations to cover the costs of hospital and community health services, discretionary funding for general practice staff, premises and computers and primary care prescribing.
  1404W
  The level of funding made available for the drugs, staffing and other costs of providing allergy services are determined locally. It is for HAs, in partnership with other local stakeholders, to determine how best to use their funds to provide health services for their populations including those with allergies.

  The British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology handbook, "National NHS Allergy Clinics" (2001), lists 86 NHS consultant-led clinics in the United Kingdom. There were an additional 15 clinics run by NHS consultants identified by the British Allergy Foundation in the handbook.

  Ashford Hospital
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress in the negotiations with Mercury Healthcare for the setting up of a new treatment centre at Ashford Hospital, Middlesex. [153276]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 9 February 2004]: The Department, working with local national health service sponsors, is continuing to make good progress towards finalising a contract for the provision of an independent sector treatment centre at Ashford.

  Asthma (Children)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) girls and (b) boys aged between five and 15 years suffered from asthma in 2003. [152563]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The data available are shown in the table.

  Finished admission episodes by sex for asthma in children For children aged five to 15 years NHS hospital trusts in England, 2002–03

  Female

  4,383

  Male

  7,011

  Total

  11,394

  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 (7 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 are grossed for both coverage and missing/invalid clinical data, except for 2001–02 and 2002–03, which are not yet adjusted for shortfalls.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  Audiology
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many audiologist posts are(a) unfilled and (b) filled by temporary appointees in NHS audiology

  1405W
  departments in England; and what percentage of the total number of audiologist posts each of these figures represents. [152730]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information is not collected separately on vacancies for audiologists; they are included within the physiological measurement area of work. Information is collected in the national health service vacancy survey on the number of vacancies lasting three months or more. As at March 2003, 66, or 1.9 per cent. of physiological measurement posts were vacant for three months or more, a fall from 2.1 per cent. in the previous year.

  Information on the number of posts currently filled by temporary appointees is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people worked in the audiology department of Musgrove Park Hospital, Taunton, in each of the last six years. [154183]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) analogue and (b) digital hearing aids were fitted in (i) Taunton Deane Primary Care Trust area and (ii) Somerset Coast Primary Care Trust area in each month of 2003. [154184]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hearing aid assessments were carried out in each month of 2003 in the(a) Taunton Deane and (b) Somerset Coast Primary Care Trust area. [154185]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  This information is not centrally held.

  Chiropody
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many patients recorded as first contacts for chiropody services(a) had a foot condition that was cured within the year and (b) did not go on to receive foot care in the last year for which statistics are available; [153800]

  (2) how many chiropody patients were cured within a year of first being referred in the last year for which statistics are available. [153802]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 9 February 2004]: The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is given to primary care trusts when considering the provision of chiropody services; and how compliance with such guidance is monitored. [153801]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 9 February 2004]: It is for primary care trusts in partnership with strategic health authorities and other local stakeholders to determine how best to use their funds to meet national and local priorities for improving health, tackling health inequalities and modernising services.
  1406W
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what responses the Government have received to its consultation on the abolition of the KT23 chiropody statistics; and when a decision will be announced. [153838]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 2 February 2004]: The internal review of the KT23 chiropody statistics is not yet complete and formal consultation with interested parties has not commenced.

  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what measures are in place to ensure that all initial contacts for chiropody services receive foot treatment and are cured; [154328]

  (2) how many patients recorded as initial contacts for chiropody services did not go on to receive foot care in each of the last six years for which figures are available; [154329]

  (3) how many patients recorded as initial contacts for chiropody services had a condition that was cured within the year in each of the last six years for which figures are available. [154330]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Consultants
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the number of consultants wishing to retire before August; and if he will make a statement. [152818]

  Mr. Hutton
  The NHS Pension Agency has not received any representations regarding the number of consultants who wish to retire before August.

  The Department has published guidance, Reviewing your retirement options: 'Consultants and senior hospital doctors', which offers doctors approaching retirement the option to reduce the pace and commitment of work. The flexible careers scheme which is supported by central funding enables doctors, approaching retirement or who have already retired, to continue working flexibly and at the same time either supplement or enhance their pension entitlements.

  Delayed Discharges
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what percentage of delayed discharge patients had been waiting over 28 days for a transfer of care as at 1 January in each year since 1997 broken down by local authority in England; [153424]

  (2) how many delayed discharge patients were awaiting a domiciliary care package in (a) England and (b) each local authority as at (i) 1 January 2004 and (ii) 1 January 2003. [153425]

  Dr. Ladyman
  These data are not available centrally. All available information on delayed transfers of care since 1997 is available in the Library. The latest figures for 2003–04, Quarter 3 (December 2003), will be available by the middle of February and will be placed in the Library.
  1407W
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been paid by each local authority in fines for delayed discharge. [153813]

  Dr. Ladyman
  I refer the hon. Member to the response given to the lion. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on 5 February 2004,Official Report, column 1064W.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of adverse incidents occurring in(a) NHS and (b) non-NHS dentistry in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [152827]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The number of adverse incidents involving dental appliances occurring in National Health Service and non-NHS dentistry is shown in the table.

  Incidents involving dental devices—1997 to February 2004

  Year

  NHS

  Non-NHS

  1997

  15

  8

  1998

  27

  11

  1999

  28

  9

  2000

  92

  22

  2001

  61

  28

  2002

  51

  31

  2003

  25

  32

  2004

  4

  6

  Total

  303

  147

  The Government has established the National Patient Safety Agency to improve the safety of NHS patient care by promoting an open and fair culture and by introducing a new national reporting and learning system for patient safety incidents. The reporting system is being implemented across the NHS during 2004.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many primary care trusts in(a) Merseyside, (b) the North West and (c) England have a permanent domestic violence health professional responsible for implementing the Department's document Domestic Violence: A Resource Manual for Health Care Professionals. [153223]

  Dr. Ladyman
  This information is not available centrally.

  Drugs/Alcohol (Children)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children aged between 14 and 19 years are known to have experimented with(a) drugs and (b) alcohol in 2003. [152554]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Data are not available in the form requested; however the latest available data are shown in the tables.1408W

  Table 1: Whether young people aged 14 and 15 have taken drugs in the last month, last year and ever, by gender—England, 2002

  Percentage

  14 years

  15 years

  Boys

  Taken in last month

  19

  25

  Taken in last year, including in last month

  28

  38

  Ever taken

  37

  47

  Girls

  Taken in last month

  15

  18

  Taken in last year, including in last month

  24

  33

  Ever taken

  31

  42

  All pupils

  Taken in last month

  17

  22

  Taken in last year, including in last month

  26

  36

  Ever taken

  34

  45

  Source:

  National Centre for Social Research/NFER Smoking, drinking and drug use among young people in England in 2002

  Table 2: Whether young people aged 16 to 19 have taken drugs in the last month, last year and ever, by gender—England and Wales, 2002–03

  Percentage

  Males

  Females

  All persons

  Taken in last month

  19

  15

  17

  Taken in last year, including in last month

  30

  24

  27

  Ever taken

  44

  36

  40

  Source:

  Home Office 2002–03 British Crime Survey

  Table 3: Whether young people aged 14 and 15 have ever had an alcoholic drink and whether they had drunk alcohol in the last week, by gender—England, 2002

  Percentage

  14 years

  15 years

  Boys

  Drank in last week

  34

  49

  Ever drank

  79

  86

  Girls

  Drank in last week

  34

  45

  Ever drank

  81

  88

  All pupils

  Drank in last week

  34

  47

  Ever drank

  80

  87

  Source:

  National Centre for Social Research/NFER Smoking, drinking and drug use among young people in England in 2002

  Table 4: Whether young people aged 16 to 19 ever drink alcohol and whether they had drunk alcohol in the last week, by gender England, 2001

  Percentage

  Males

  Non-drinker

  16

  Drinks alcohol nowadays

  84

  Drank in the last week

  59

  Females

  Non-drinker

  17

  Drinks alcohol nowadays

  83

  Drank in the last week

  57

  All persons

  Non-drinker

  17

  Drinks alcohol nowadays

  83

  Drank in the last week

  58

  1409W
  Notes:

  1.Respondents are categorised as a 'drinker' if they report ever drinking alcohol nowadays.

  2.Figures for non-drinker include those that used to drink alcohol but do not drink nowadays.

  Source:

  ONS Living in Britain. General Household Survey, 2001

  Eczema (Children)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of children who suffered from asthma also suffered from eczema in 2003. [152559]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Using latest data available (1996) the percentage of children who have suffered from asthma was 19 per cent., and those who have suffered from eczema was 23 per cent. The percentage of children who have suffered from both asthma and eczema was seven per cent., This means that 37 per cent., of those with asthma have also suffered from eczema.

  Ethical Recruitment
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the recruitment agencies used by the NHS have not signed up to the code of practice on ethical recruitment. [150658]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 26 January 2004]: The Department does not hold a list of agencies used by the national health service when recruiting overseas. NHS trusts should use only those commercial agencies which comply with the code of practice and which are listed on the Department's website.

  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) steps his Department is taking and (b) guarantees his Department seeks to ensure that the NHS does not employ recruitment agencies that have not signed up to its code of practice on ethical recruitment. [150659]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 26 January 2004]: National health service trusts should use only those commercial agencies which comply with the code of practice and which are listed on the Department's website.

  Strategic health authorities are working with trusts to ensure they comply with the code of practice and only work with agencies which are compliant.

  European Health Insurance Card
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made concerning the European Health Insurance Card; when he expects to issue such cards to UK citizens; and whether there will be a charge. [151491]

  Mr. Hutton
  Ministers are currently considering the options available for implementing the European Health Insurance Card in the United Kingdom. Member states, like the UK, which do not currently have a card-issuing infrastructure, have until 31 December 2005 to begin issuing cards to their residents. No decisions have yet been taken on the precise timetable for issue to UK residents. The card will be issued free of charge to the holder.
  1410W

  Foundation Hospitals
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 12 January 2004,Official Report, columns 602–03W, on foundation hospitals. whether the Department will set minimum standards on (a) ethical and (b) environmental investments. [149506]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  There are no current plans to publish minimum standards on ethical and environmental investments.

  Free Personal Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his estimates of the cost of implementing the Royal Commission recommendation of free personal care took into account the(a) decision of the Health Service Ombudsman in the case of Mr. Malcolm Pointon and (b) subsequent review by strategic health authorities of continuing care decisions and policies following the decision by the Health Service Ombudsman. [152913]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The decision by the Health Service Ombudsman in the case of Malcolm Pointon is a decision on an individual case, and as such has no bearing on the estimates of the cost of free personal care at a national level.

  The review by strategic health authorities (SHAs) of past decisions on national health service-funded continuing care is retrospective. Payments will be made to individuals where incorrect decisions about NHS funding were made in the past, but these have no bearing on the future cost of free personal care at a national level. Any change made by SHAs to eligibility criteria for fully funded NHS continuing care, following review, is covered in the range of estimates given for the cost of free personal care.

  GP Premises
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from general practitioners and their representatives on difficulties in purchasing appropriate premises because of(a) house prices and (b) negative equity; and if he will make a statement. [152128]

  Mr. Hutton
  I am not aware of any general concerns being raised by general practitioners or their representatives on difficulties in purchasing appropriate premises. The arrangements in place to reimburse GP premises costs take account of differing local property prices. Additionally, a flexibility was introduced in September 2003 to enable primary care trusts to provide a grant towards mortgage deficit and/or redemption costs to enable a move to new premises or to modernise existing premises to improve service delivery.

  Head Injuries (Children)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children suffered from severe head injuries in each year since 2000. [152561]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The data available are shown in the table.
  1411W

  Primary Diagnosis (ICD-10 SOO-S09) Injuries to the Head Count of Finished Admissions Episodes Age on Admission 0 to 17 years NHS Hospitals England 2000–01 to 2002–03

  Admission Episodes

  2000–01

  40,408

  2001–02

  39,693

  2002–03

  38,170

  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 (7 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 for 2000–01 are grossed for both coverage and missing/invalid clinical data. For 2001–02 and 2002–03, figures are not yet adjusted for shortfalls.

  Source:
  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the trust temporary borrowing limits for each strategic health authority are for 2003–04; [152472]

  (2) what financial information requests are made by his Department of (a) strategic health trusts, (b) NHS trusts and (c) primary care trusts. [152720]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Health Care Assistants
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department will publish proposals on the regulation of health care assistants. [152828]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government are committed to consult on proposals to regulate health care support staff, which will include health care assistants, and this consultation will be taking place in the near future. The consultation will identify those categories of staff whose clinical practice needs to be of a high standard in order to ensure patient safety. The proposals include a range of options including full statutory regulation for these staff and the Government will decide on the way forward in light of the responses to the consultation.

  Independent Treatment Centres
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures the Government have in place to ensure that independent treatment centres run by NTC do not recruit from the NHS. [152927]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 5 February 2004]: New treatment centres run by the independent sector will be precluded as part of the contracts they sign from poaching national health service staff. Providers are required to demonstrate to sponsors that their workforce strategy is compliant with the contract.

  Mental Health
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many secure beds are available in each mental health trust; [152918]
  1412W
  (2) what the occupancy rates of beds in secure mental health institutions were in each mental health trust area in England in each of the last three years. [152942]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Information on numbers and occupancy rates of national health service beds, including those for people with mental health problems categorised by ward classification, is available from the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivity/

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he(a) has made and (b) will undertake of the support needs of families of sufferers of mental ill health. [152919]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The national service framework (NSF) for mental health provides rationale and evidence base for a national standard for mental health services relating to carers of people with mental health problems.

  This NSF standard stipulates that all individuals who provide regular and substantial care for a person on the care programme approach should have an assessment of their caring, physical and mental health needs repeated on at least an annual basis. People who provide regular and substantial care for a person on the care programme approach are also entitled to have their own written care plan which is given to them and implemented in discussion with them.

  In view of the vital role carers play in looking after the users of mental health services, the NHS Plan set a target for services to recruit 700 carer support workers by the end of the year to increase the breaks available for carers, and to strengthen carer support networks.

  In addition, the Department published "Developing services for carers and families of people with mental illness" in November 2002. Its recommendations are being taken forward by the National Institute for Mental Health in England.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many adolescent mental health specialists there are in England. [152718]

  Mr. Hutton
  As at 30 June 2003, there were 500 consultants in the specialty of child and adolescent psychiatry working in the National Health Service in England.

  Consultant numbers in the specialty have increased by 12 per cent., 55 since September 1997.

  Missed Hospital Appointments
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce fines for patients who miss hospital appointments; and if he will make a statement. [153630]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 9 February 2004]: We have currently no plans to introduce fines for people who do not attend (DNA).

  The Government established a national booking programme as part of their modernisation agenda. Giving patients the opportunity to choose the location, time and date of their hospital appointment will reduce the number of DNAs.
  1413W

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many whole time equivalent(a) managers, (b) senior managers and (c) clerical and administrative staff were working in the NHS in England on 1 December, using the definitions in Table 6A of the Department's report, NHS hospital and community health services non-medical staff in England: 1991–2001. [145728]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 5 January 2004]: The information requested as at 30 September 2002, the latest available data, is shown in the table.

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services: Administration and Estates staff in England as at 30 September 2002

  Whole-time equivalent

  Total Administration and Estates staff

  201,777

  Senior manager

  11,420

  Manager

  19,494

  Clerical and administrative

  158,978

  Maintenance and works

  11,831

  Unclassified

  54

  Notes:
  Figures are rounded to the nearest whole-number

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-medical Workforce Census

  The definitions of administrative staff were changed for the 2002 non-medical workforce census to more accurately reflect their roles in the National Health Service. Until the September 2002 bulletin, table 6a showed a breakdown of the whole administrative and estates group, including staff working in direct support to clinical staff. It now shows those staff working in central functions and hotel, property and estates as well as managers, clerical and administrative staff working in central functions. Staff such as medical secretaries have been more appropriately classified as working in direct support to clinical staff. The more appropriate table 6a for September 2002 is shown in the following table. Hotel, property and estates staff includes laundry, catering and domestic services staff; essential for the day-to-day running of hospitals.

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services: NHS infrastructure support in England as at 30 September 2002

  Whole-time equivalents

  NHS infrastructure support

  158,026

  Central functions—administrative and clerical staff

  72,730

  Hotel, property and estates

  54,382

  Manager

  19,494

  Senior Manager

  11,420

  Notes:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest whole-number

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-medical Workforce Census

  Patient Power Project
  Mr. Portillo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds have installed services for telephone, television and radio under the Patient Power Project, broken down by the licence holder providing the service. [152033]
  1414W
  Mr. Hutton
  52,000 beds have installed patient power services, including 46,000 in the major hospitals targeted in the NHS Plan. The number of operational beds provided by patient power licence holders is shown in the table.

  Licence Holder

  Number of operational beds

  Patientline

  44,400

  Wandsworth Electrical

  3,713

  Hospital Telephone Services

  2,841

  Kerfone

  1,375

  Premier Managed Payphones

  100

  Mr. Portillo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proportion of the beds deemed suitable to receive telephone, television and radio services under the Patient Power Project have those services; [152034]

  (2) how many and what proportion of NHS trusts have signed concession agreements with licence holders under the Patient Power project; [152035]

  (3) how many installations under the Patient Power project will be completed by the end of 2004. [152036]

  Mr. Hutton
  Strong progress is being made with the patient power project. These facilities for patients are delivered at no cost to the National Health Service. As a result, the National Health Service has benefited from over £100 million of private sector investment.

  The NHS Plan target states that patient power services will be available in every major hospital by the end of 2004, which means some 85,000 beds in 155 major hospitals in 125 trusts will have a system. Within major hospitals, over 46,000 beds of that target of 85,000 already have an operational system with almost a year to go before the NHS Plan deadline for installation. 122 of the 125 targeted trusts have signed a contract with a supplier and the remaining three are expected to sign shortly. In addition, NHS Estates has worked with suppliers to enable smaller hospitals to install a service. In total, 52,000 beds in 112 hospitals currently have the service. So far, a total of 149 trusts have signed a contract with a patient power licence holder.

  Mr. Portillo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many licences have been awarded to firms to provide telephone, television and radio services to hospital patients' bedsides under the patient power project. [152037]

  Mr. Hutton
  Eight patient power suppliers have licences, five of which are full licences and three are provisional.

  Prison Suicide
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the interim report of the three-year study being undertaken by Manchester university on behalf of his Department into prison suicide has been completed; if he will place a copy of the interim report in the Library; and if he will make a statement on the conclusions and recommendations. [151410]

  Paul Goggins
  I have been asked to reply.
  1415W
  Manchester University, on behalf of the Prison Service and the Department of Health, were asked to evaluate existing and new tools that help staff care for prisoners at risk of suicide and self-harm. The evaluation of the existing tool (the F2052SH) was undertaken in 2002 and a report completed. The evaluation of the proposed new tool (the ACCT, that is being piloted in five prisons: Wandsworth, Feltham, Low Newton, Holme House and Woodhill) is not due for completion until later this year. A copy of the report on the F2052SH has been placed in the House Library.

  Project Funding
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding is to be allocated for(a) implementation of the European Working Time Directive, (b) the Agenda for Change programme, (c) implementation of the new consultant contract and (d) implementation of the new general practitioner contract. [152625]

  Mr. Hutton
  Primary care trust (PCT) allocations for 2003–04 to 2005–06 were announced on 11 December 2002.

  Although none of the growth money has been identified for specific purposes, the allocations do include funding to support the roll-out of Agenda for Change and for the implementation of the consultant contract.

  Additional funding, worth 0.8 per cent. of main allocations, has been allocated to PCTs in 2004–05 and a further 0.8 per cent. in 2005–06 to cover the costs of implementing Agenda for Change in acute and specialist hospital trusts, mental health trusts, ambulance trusts and PCTs themselves.

  Additional funding, worth 0.3 per cent. of main allocations, has been allocated to PCTs in 2003–04, a further 0.1 per cent. in 2004–05 and a further 0.1 per cent. in 2005–06 for the implementation of the new consultant contract.

  School Nurses
  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are employed in England as school nurses. [153900]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 9 February 2004]: The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Working Time Directive
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the implications of the Working Time Directive on the work of general practitioners. [151699]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Working Time Directive (WTD) is an integral part of modernising and improving services at all levels. Strategic health authorities are responsible for planning for implementation by trusts of the WTD for doctors in training from August 2004, as part of their overall national health service planning.
  1416W
  There are a range of solutions to WTD compliance which involve changing the working practices of both medical and non-medical staff. In some cases this may mean changes to the balance and pattern of primary care provision.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish an update from the European Working Time Directive pilot sites. [152622]

  Mr. Hutton
  Reports from the Working Time Directive (WTD) pilots are posted on the Department's web-site at www.doh.gov.uk/workingtime/pilots.htm and on the Modernisation Agency web-site at www.modern.nhs.uk. While the pilots are underway, lessons from their experience, examples of good practice and other changes put in place by the pilots that may contribute to achieving WTD compliance are being shared with the National Health Service through the monthly bulletin, "Calling time".

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Speed Fines
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the estimated revenue from speed fines(a) is in the current financial year and (b) was in the previous financial year. [153091]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 5 February 2004]: Information on the revenue raised from speeding fines is not available.

  Available information shows the total number and amount of fines ordered to be paid following conviction for speeding offences within England and Wales for the calendar years 2000 and 2001. As the majority of such offences are dealt with by the issue of a fixed penalty, the table also shows the total amount of fixed penalties ordered to be paid.

  Not all fines and fixed penalties will have been paid.

  Information for 2002 will be available in the Spring.

  Fines and fixed penalties data for speeding offences, England and Wales, 2000–01

  Court proceedings

  Fixed Penalties

  Number of fines

  Total amount of fine (£)

  Average Fine (£)

  Number of tickets

  Estimated revenue (£)1

  2000

  139,200

  18,098,000

  130

  1,023,500

  44,351,000

  2001

  133,500

  17,622,000

  132

  1,233,000

  73,980,000

  1 'Estimate' based on £60 penalty charge.

  Aggravated Burglary
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of trends in the grant of bail for those charged with aggravated burglary at domestic premises; and if he will make it his policy to seek a reduction in the grant of bail for such offences; [153329]

  (2) what assessment he has made of trends in custodial sentencing for those convicted of aggravated burglary of domestic premises; and what his policy is on custodial sentencing for such offences. [153330]
  1417W
  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 6 February 2004]: The available information, relating to the custody rate and average custodial sentence length for persons sentenced for domestic aggravated burglary in England and Wales, 1995 to 2002, is contained in the table. The figures show that both the custody rate and the average sentence length have increased since 1995.

  The Government believe that custody should be reserved for dangerous and serious offenders. It is for the courts to impose appropriate sentences in individual cases, taking all circumstances into account.

  The Government have always stressed the seriousness of the offence of burglary. The courts have robust sentencing powers in respect of aggravated burglary: the maximum penalty for the offence is life imprisonment.

  Persons sentenced for offences of aggravated burglary1 in a dwelling and those receiving immediate custody, England and Wales, 1995 to 2002

  Number of persons sentenced

  Persons sentenced to immediate Custody (inc. life)

  Custody rate (percentage)

  Average custodial sentence length (exc. life) (months)

  Number of life sentences

  1995

  229

  179

  78.2

  44.7

  1

  1996

  278

  220

  79.1

  44.3

  —

  1997

  273

  232

  85.0

  46.0

  —

  1998

  224

  196

  87.5

  46.0

  1

  1999

  234

  210

  89.7

  45.5

  —

  2000

  194

  179

  92.3

  48.6

  —

  2001

  221

  191

  86.4

  50.2

  3

  2002

  288

  254

  88.2

  50.1

  3

  1 Data are on the principal offence basis

  Source:
  Offending and Criminal Justice Group, RDS.

  Ref: IOS 72–04 4 February 2004

  Of those received into prison under sentence for aggravated burglary in the five years 1998–2002, 82 per cent.-85 per cent. had previously been remanded in custody. These figures do not suggest that courts are unduly ready to grant bail to defendants accused of this offence.

  Receptions into prison under an immediate custodial sentence for aggravated burglary: Proportion known to have been previously remanded in custody

  Percentage

  1998

  84

  1999

  83

  2000

  85

  2001

  82

  2002

  82

  Anti-social Behaviour
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department over what period he will pilot the penalty fines for 16 and 17-year-olds contained in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003; and if he will publish an evaluation of the pilot. [152751]

  Ms Blears
  Taking account of the experience gained of the pilot scheme for adults, we have decided that the issues for 16 and 17-year-olds are essentially the same as for adults. We therefore propose to go ahead nationally with the scheme for 16 and 17-year-olds alongside the 1418W
  national rollout of the adult scheme. That will happen in police areas over the coming months as the necessary IT software becomes available. We will be evaluating the operation of the scheme for 16 to 17-year-olds on an interim basis after six months and again after 12 months. The results will be made available to the House.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of links between trick or treat activities during Halloween with criminal behaviour. [145345]

  Ms Blears
  No assessment has been made of evidence that links trick or treat activities during Halloween with criminal behaviour.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which bodies will be consulted specifically on curfew orders and supervision orders under the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003. [153104]

  Ms Blears
  The Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 provides for extension of the maximum length of curfew orders for 10 to 15-year-olds from three months to six months and the maximum time under supervision from 90 to 180 days. This is primarily to allow the Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme (ISSP) to run for up to 12 months. We aim to pilot the extended ISSP from September 2004. We will be consulting beforehand on the guidance in particular with court Youth Offending Team, children's charity and ISSP interests together with the devolved administrations.

  The Act also provides for intensive fostering within Supervision Orders, and we will consult on implementation with children's charity, family, Youth Offending Team and social services interests.

  Bribery
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what targets have been set by his Department for investigation and prosecution of the offence of bribery of a foreign public official; [151378]

  (2) what additional resources he has earmarked for enforcement of Part 12 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 since February 2002, and to which law enforcement agencies he has assigned them. [151379]

  Paul Goggins
  No specific targets have been set by the Home Office for the investigation and prosecution of the offence of bribery of a foreign public official, nor have any additional funds been allocated.

  Burglary
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were(a) charged, (b) prosecuted and (c) found guilty of burglary in each year since 1997; how many of these were (i) under 16, (ii) under 18 and (iii) under 21; and how many of those found guilty were given (A) custodial sentences and (B) non-custodial sentences, broken down by age group. [152598]
  1419W
  Paul Goggins
  The available information is contained in the table and relates to persons proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty and sentenced at all courts for burglary of all types in England and Wales, 1997 to 2002.

  Persons proceeded against at magistrates courts and those found guilty and at all courts for offences of burglary1, by age, England and Wales, 1997

  Number of persons

  Proceeded against

  Found guilty at all courts

  Sentenced

  Sentenced to custody

  Given non-custodial sentences

  1997

  All ages

  49,530

  31,703

  31,656

  14,338

  17,318

  of whom:

  Aged 10 to 15

  5,510

  3,354

  3,338

  362

  2,976

  Aged 16 to 17

  8,365

  5,274

  5,286

  1,595

  3,691

  Aged 18 to 20

  10,454

  7,116

  7,095

  3,325

  3,773

  1998

  All ages

  48,114

  30,769

  31,087

  14,547

  16,540

  of whom:

  Aged 10 to 15

  5,766

  3,517

  3,507

  329

  3,178

  Aged 16 to 17

  7,944

  5,011

  4,980

  1,514

  3,466

  Aged 18 to 20

  10,143

  6,830

  6,841

  3,458

  3,383

  1999

  All ages

  46,141

  29,261

  29,329

  14,345

  14,984

  of whom:

  Aged 10 to 15

  5,297

  3,294

  3,274

  381

  2,893

  Aged 16 to 17

  7,094

  4,510

  4,492

  1,434

  3,058

  Aged 18 to 20

  9,752

  6,565

  6,511

  3,408

  3,103

  2000

  All ages

  42,406

  26,222

  26,694

  13,677

  13,017

  of whom:

  Aged 10 to 15

  5,080

  2,948

  2,953

  422

  2,531

  Aged 16 to 17

  6,447

  3,866

  3,896

  1,175

  2,721

  Aged 18 to 20

  8,496

  5,650

  5,761

  3,055

  2,706

  2001

  All ages

  41,593

  24,802

  24,655

  12,476

  12,179

  of whom:

  Aged 10 to 15

  4,951

  2,859

  2,859

  434

  2,425

  Aged 16 to 17

  5,787

  3,412

  3,408

  979

  2,429

  Aged 18 to 20

  8,069

  4,948

  4,829

  2,563

  2,260

  2002

  All ages

  43,648

  26,691

  26,376

  13,350

  13,026

  of whom:

  Aged 10 to 15

  4,930

  3,051

  3,052

  406

  2,646

  Aged 16 to 17

  5,728

  3,367

  3,366

  939

  2,427

  Aged 18 to 20

  7,608

  4,730

  4,639

  2,449

  2,190

  1 These data are on the principal offence

  Camp Hill Prison
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many mentally ill prisoners are being held in the segregation unit at Camp Hill Prison; and if he will take steps to have them transferred to suitable accommodation. [153735]

  Paul Goggins
  Every effort is made to avoid holding prisoners with acute mental illness in the segregation unit at Camp Hill. On 9 February 2004 there were no such prisoners held there.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to increase the hours of purposeful activity for prisoners at Camp Hill Prison. [153738]
  1420W
  Statistics on court proceedings for 2003 will be published in the autumn.

  Paul Goggins
  In 2003–04, HMP Camp Hill's level of purposeful activity has been reduced by the closure of the two main engineering workshops, in rotation, for major re-roofing work. The increased roll has exacerbated the fall in hours per prisoner.

  I am pleased to confirm that the workshops are now functioning fully, and this, combined with a review of contracts, rationalisation of instructors, development of horticulture, a review of prisoners pay and the provision of 35 additional work places, will improve levels of purposeful activity. The target for 2004–05 is 22 hours per week.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to reduce the number of staff on sick leave at Camp Hill Prison. [153739]
  1421W
  Paul Goggins
  During 2003 HMP Camp Hill has experienced significant levels of long term sick leave. A combination of phased returns to work and staff retirements has significantly reduced sickness absence.

  Cannabis
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost to public funds was per prosecution for cannabis related offences in each of the last five years. [151505]

  Caroline Flint
  It is not possible to provide a breakdown of criminal justice system costs in relation to cannabis prosecutions. However, the average cost per

  Persons1 fined and sentenced to immediate custody2 for cannabis related offences England and Wales, 1998 to 2002

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Offence

  Persons fined

  Persons sentenced to immediate custody

  Persons fined

  Persons sentenced to immediate custody

  Persons fined

  Persons sentenced to immediate custody

  Supplying or offering to supply (or being concerned in supplying or offering to supply) cannabis

  155

  656

  116

  573

  68

  405

  Possession of cannabis with intent to supply

  244

  1,284

  197

  1,112

  150

  806

  Production of or being concerned in the production of cannabis

  637

  216

  499

  206

  394

  156

  Possession of cannabis

  15,503

  410

  15,215

  451

  13,538

  361

  2001

  2002

  Offence

  Persons fined

  Persons sentenced to immediate custody

  Persons fined

  Persons sentenced to immediate custody

  Supplying or offering to supply (or being concerned in supplying or offering to supply) cannabis

  60

  265

  51

  258

  Possession of cannabis with intent to supply

  100

  618

  103

  547

  Production of or being concerned in the production of cannabis

  302

  126

  422

  83

  Possession of cannabis

  12,960

  290

  14,123

  241

  1 These data are on the principal offence basis.

  1 Includes unsuspended imprisonment, secure training orders, detention in a young offender institution and detention and training orders.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) on what date the meeting at which the decision was taken that an advertisement campaign to reiterate the illegality of cannabis should be launched was held; and if he will publish the minutes; [153948]

  (2) which agencies were asked to bid for the advertisement campaign to reiterate the illegality of cannabis; and what prices they quoted; [153949]

  (3) what methods he is using to measure the effectiveness of the advertising campaign to reiterate the illegality of cannabis; [153950]

  (4) what criteria he used to decide that an advertising campaign to reiterate the illegality of cannabis was necessary; [153951]

  (5) which agency handled the 2004 advertisement campaign to reiterate that cannabis is an illegal drug. [153983]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 9 February 2004]: The agency Mother, which is the Home Office's incumbent agency for the drugs education campaign, FRANK, was retained for the reclassification of cannabis campaign aimed at persons under 18. They had
  1422W
  person proceeded against of a prosecution for a notifiable drugs offence is £13,072. This includes all the costs of the proceedings including punishment (prison or probation) but not investigation.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been(a) fined and (b) given a prison sentence for (i) supplying, (ii) trafficking and (iii) possession of cannabis in each of the last five years. [151507]

  Paul Goggins
  The available information is contained in the table.

  Statistics for 2003 will be published in the autumn.

  participated in a full competitive pitch through the COI's roster of preferred providers and had been awarded a contract in October 2002.

  The joint Home Office/ACPO advertising campaign aimed at adults was commissioned through ACPO and was based on proposals they had developed with their own agency.

  Detailed planning for an advertising campaign started in summer 2003, when officials from the Home Office, Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills held a series of meetings. The proposal to launch a campaign was referred to by my right hon. noble and learned Friend the Baroness Scotland of Asthal, during the debate on the reclassification of cannabis on 12 November 2003,Official Report, House of Lords, column 1469. Specific prices quoted by agencies cannot be released as this would breach commercial in confidence rules.

  The effectiveness of the advertising campaign reconfirming the illegality of cannabis is being measured through a survey with a representative sample of 14 to 17-year-olds. It will report on young people's attitudes as well as their understanding of the changes in the law. An industry-standard approach has been used, using

  1423W
  quantitative surveys with a representative sample before the campaign starts, followed by a second wave for comparison once the advertising has finished.

  The Government are determined that nobody should be left in any doubt about the central message in regard to the reclassification of cannabis. The drug remains illegal and is harmful. The advertising is just one strand of a wide range of communications activity which includes leaflets, posters, postcards and education packs for schools and professionals.

  Cheadle Royal Hospital
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his Answer of 12 January 2004,Official Report, column 502W, on Cheadle Royal Hospital, what steps he has taken to satisfy himself that (a) all the income received by the charity has been applied to the properly authorised charitable purposes and (b) all the assets of the charity have been sold or reassigned in accordance with charity law, with particular reference to section 36(8) of the Charities Act 1993. [151001]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  I confirmed in my Answers of 8 December 2003,Official Report, column 766W and 12 January 2004,Official Report, column 502W, that neither the Charity Commission nor the Greater Manchester police have found evidence of charitable income or assets being inappropriately used by the trustees of Cheadle Royal Hospital.

  Community Sentence Breaches
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women were sentenced to immediate custody in England and Wales following breach of a community sentence in each year since 1992. [151425]

  Paul Goggins
  The information requested, for the years 1992 to 2002 is contained in the table.

  Persons1 sentenced to immediate custody2 for breaches of community sentences3, England and Wales. 1992–2002

  Males

  Females

  Total

  1992

  2,36

  51

  2,412

  1993

  2,909

  64

  2,973

  1994

  5,29

  228

  5,51

  1995

  5,914

  238

  6,152

  1996

  6,265

  323

  6,588

  1997

  6,779

  426,

  7,205

  1998

  5,928

  473

  6,401

  1999

  6,925

  648

  7,573

  2000

  7,583

  740

  8,323

  2001

  7,286

  817

  8,103

  2002

  8,151

  936

  9,087

  1 Includes a person more than once if sentenced to immediate custody for a breach of more than one type of community sentence on the same day.

  2 Includes partly suspended sentences, unsuspended imprisonment, secure training orders, detention in a young offender institution and detention and training orders. Some of the persons shown may be sentenced to non-effective custody for the breach if also sentenced to custody for the fresh offence which caused the breach.

  3 Includes probation orders (community rehabilitation orders from April 2001), supervision orders, community service orders (community punishment orders from April 2001), attendance centre orders, combination orders (community punishment and

  1424W
  rehabilation orders from April 2001), curfew orders, reparation orders (from June 2001, action plan orders (from June 2000), drug treatment and testing orders (from October 2000) and referral orders (from April 2002).

  Statistics for 2003 will be published in the autumn of this year.

  Community Support Officers
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the results of the pilot schemes giving community support officers the right to detain people for 30 minutes will be published. [153332]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 6 February 2004]: At present six police forces are piloting the power of detention, which was given to community support officers by the Police Reform Act 2002. The forces are the Metropolitan Police Service, West Yorkshire Police, Gwent Police, Lancashire Constabulary, Northamptonshire Police, and Devon and Cornwall Constabulary. The pilot is scheduled to last until December 2004.

  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) with the assistance of the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate are conducting an evaluation of the use of this power.

  HMIC have recently initiated an interim review of the first 12 months and have indicated to me that an interim report will be provided this year with the full report available for March 2005. These reports will be published and laid before the House once they have been completed.

  Contingency Planning
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's preparedness for a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear (CBRN) incident. [152266]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 3 February 2004]: I refer the hon. Member to my reply I gave him of 30 January 2004,Official Report, column 1039W, and my statement of 3 March 2003,Official Report, columns 72–73WS.

  I plan to update the House on the UK's Resilience to major emergencies shortly.

  Crime/Police Statistics (Southend)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many drug-related offences were recorded in Southend in each of the last 10 years; and how many successful prosecutions were brought in each year, broken down by type of drug involved; (152202]

  (2) how many violent offences were recorded in Southend in each of the last 10 years; and how many successful convictions there were for violent offences in each of the last 10 years. [152203]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 3 February 2004]: The numbers of drug-related offences recorded in Southend are not collected centrally. In addition, the specific drug offences in the recorded crime statistics, namely drug trafficking, possession and other drug offences, are not collected centrally for Southend. Again, it is not possible to provide prosecution data for drug related offences

  1425W
  from the Court Proceedings database. Data for those proceeded against and found guilty specifically for drug offences in the last five years in the South East Essex Petty Sessional Area is given in Table A.

  Recorded crime figures for six key offences are collected and published at Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP), and Basic Command Unit (BCD) level. The six offences include the violent crimes of Violence against the person, Sexual offences and Robbery. Table B gives the number of violent crimes recorded in the Southend CDRP since 1999–2000 which is the year CDRP data were first collected centrally. The available Court Proceedings data from 1998 are given in Table C.

  Table A: Number of defendants proceeded against and found guilty for drug offences at South East Essex Petty Sessional Area (PSA)1 including those found guilty at the Crown court where South East Essex PSA was the committing court2 1998 to 2002

  Proceeded against

  Found guilty

  1998

  263

  248

  1999

  336

  293

  2000

  280

  252

  2001

  258

  231

  2002

  235

  205

  1 Covers Southend and some parts of Rayleigh, Benfleet and Canvey.

  2 These data are on the principal offence basis.

  Table B: Violent crime offences recorded in Southend CDRP

  Offence

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–031

  Violence against the person

  1,46

  1,414

  1,444

  3,043

  Sexual offences

  157

  135

  139

  195

  Robbery

  166

  148

  217

  313

  1 Essex Police implemented the principles of the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) on 1 April 2002. Broadly, the NCRS had the effect of increasing the number of crimes recorded by the police. Therefore, following the introduction of the Standard, numbers of recorded crimes are not comparable with previous years.

  Table C: Number of defendants proceeded against and found guilty for Violence against the Person, Sexual offences and Robbery at South East Essex Petty Sessional Area1 including those found guilty at the Crown court where South East Essex PSA was the committing court2, 1998 to 2002

  Year/Offence group

  Proceeded against

  Found guilty

  1998

  Violence against the Person

  421

  171

  Sexual offences

  38

  10

  Robbery

  38

  19

  1999

  Violence against the person

  353

  162

  Sexual offences

  41

  15

  Robbery

  28

  17

  2000

  Violence against the person

  290

  127

  Sexual offences

  23

  12

  Robbery

  28

  12

  2001

  Violence against the person

  351

  120

  Sexual offences

  27

  8

  Robbery

  31

  13

  2002

  Violence against the person

  292

  145

  Sexual offences

  45

  12

  Robbery

  49

  15

  1 Covers Southend and some parts of Rayleigh, Benfleet and Canvey.

  2 These data are on the principal offence basis

  1426W

  Drug Treatment
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drug offenders(a) in prison and (b) in the community received treatment for drug problems in 2002–03. [153715]

  Paul Goggins
  The Prison Service does not collect data in the exact format requested. The numbers of people receiving treatment for drug misuse are not listed by offence type. However, data are available for those in custody and in the community.

  In 2002–03 the numbers of people who received treatment for drug problems while in custody in England and Wales are listed in the following table.

  Number

  CARATs1

  51,970

  Detoxification

  50,701

  Rehabilitation

  4,386

  1 Counselling Assessment, Referral, Advice and Through-care services—a low-level intervention that provides a gateway assessment, referral and support service to prisoners both within custody and upon their initial release.

  The number of people who received treatment for drug problems in the community was 140,900.

  Firearms
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will retain the Firearms Consultative Committee until the end of the consultation period. [R] [153044]

  Caroline Flint
  I refer to the statement I made on 30 January 2004,Official Report, column 20. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has decided not to extend further the life of the Firearms Consultative Committee. The Government are considering the establishment of a new consultative structure which will facilitate the submission of views on a broader basis than was allowed for under a statutory framework.

  Graffiti
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what programmes his Department funds aimed at diverting those who graffiti to productive activities. [153606]

  Ms Blears
  The Home Office provides £7 million per year to the Youth Justice Board (YJB). We are providing funding until April 2006. The Youth Justice Board's Youth Inclusion Project includes the Community Merit Award programmes, which reward positive contributions to the community such as cleaning graffiti.

  £15 million has been given to the Positive Futures programme, which is aimed at marginalised children from 10 to 19 years old in the most deprived areas. This programme focuses on building links to education, training and employment and diverts young people from anti-social activities such as graffiti.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Mayor of London concerning graffiti in London. [153609]
  1427W
  Ms Blears
  There have been no discussions with the Mayor of London concerning graffiti in London.

  However in November 2003 we launched the Name that Tag poster campaign which offers a £500 reward for information about targeted prolific taggers. This campaign is a partnership between the Home Office, Crimestoppers, Network Rail London Underground and British Transport Police and runs in London, Liverpool and Manchester. It sends a clear message to taggers that we have had enough of their nuisance and they will be caught.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether anti-social behaviour orders can be imposed on those convicted of graffiti-related offences. [153611]

  Ms Blears
  Yes. Anti-social behaviour orders can be granted where it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that an individual has acted in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm and distress to others, and where the court judges that an order is necessary to protect people from further antisocial acts.

  For example, the British Transport Police have obtained a number of orders on those who do graffiti prohibiting them from carrying the implements with which to do so and from trespassing on non-public areas of London Underground or railway property.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will issue policy guidance to the police to take action to reduce the number of heavy goods vehicles using the third lane on motorways. [153249]

  Caroline Flint
  I agree with the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) that guidance is unnecessary at this time.

  The majority of HGV drivers adhere to the law and do not use the third lane. I know there will always be a small minority who exercise poor lane discipline, and their actions can cause annoyance. There is however little evidence to suggest this is causing any significant problem.

  Home Detention Curfew
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners released on home detention curfew (HDC) since January 1999(a) have been convicted, (b) have been cautioned, (c) have been prosecuted and (d) are awaiting prosecution whilst on HDC. [152705]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Identity Card
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps will be taken by his Department to minimise the potential for identity card fraud(a) before and (b) following the introduction of the proposed identity card scheme. [152680]
  1428W
  Beverley Hughes
  The Government are committed to maximising the security of the identity card scheme. Security is central to the design of the IT systems, the processes and the card itself. Following introduction of the scheme the Government will work to maintain the scheme's security and to combat fraudulent use, building on experience gained manufacturing and issuing other sensitive documents such as passports and residence permits.

  Within the scheme the use of biometric technology will be key to ensuring security and defeating attempts at fraud. A trial examining the use of biometrics in identity cards is currently under way, led by the UK Passport Service.

  Police
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the benefits to Gwent Police of the Tetra communication system. [153031]

  Ms Blears
  By mid-2006, all police forces in England, Wales and Scotland will be using Airwave, their new radio system.

  Airwave provides modern and efficient radiocommunications, giving excellent coverage and secure transmissions and improving the safety of police officers and the public.

  In Gwent, officers are able to use Airwave handsets in 96 per cent. of the force area, compared with 30 per cent. coverage using the old radio system. Airwave car radios can be used in 99 per cent. of the force area, compared with 90 per cent. previously. This increased coverage allows officers to attend incidents safely in areas such as Forest Coalpit, Llanthony and the Wye Valley, which was not possible with the previous radio system.

  Police Disciplinary Procedures
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with chief constables concerning the impact on staff morale of long-term suspensions and investigations of police officers. [152447]

  Ms Blears
  There have been discussions on suspensions in which staff morale was raised but the main features of those discussions were to do with the operational and public interest needs of keeping an officer suspended. Such discussions related to the operation of the power to suspend police officers under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 1999 and the supporting guidance and were conducted within a subgroup of the Police Advisory Board for England and Wales. The Association of Chief Police Officers is represented on this sub-group as are the Superintendents' Association and the Police Federation. As a result of discussions held, the guidance on suspension was amended in November 2003 in a number of respects including a requirement to ensure that the continuing need for suspension is subject to, at least, monthly reviews.

  There have been no discussions concerning the impact on staff morale of the investigation of police officers. Staff morale is a matter for the chief constable and his

  1429W
  human resources department. Every officer who is suspended has the support of the staff associations and access to the force staff welfare department.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average(a) time and (b) cost of the suspension of police officers in England and Wales where complaints were made against them was in the latest period for which figures are available. [152452]

  Ms Blears
  Information concerning the(a) time and (b) cost of the suspension of police officers in England and Wales is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. I cannot therefore provide the average requested.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he makes of the(a) cash costs of complaints against police officers and (b) the length of time they take to resolve when determining the budget of each police authority. [152454]

  Ms Blears
  No central assessment is made of the cash costs of complaints against police officers. This is a matter for individual police authorities and forces.

  The budget of each police force is a matter for each police authority. The funding formula used as the basis for allocating Home Office police grant to police authorities takes into account general operational needs, but does not specifically address complaints investigation costs.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the costs of the suspension by Devon and Cornwall Constabulary of Stuart Elford, identifying the(a) associated legal fees, (b) cost of the investigation and (c) cost of the involvement of the Police Complaints Authority. [152455]

  Ms Blears
  Devon and Cornwall Constabulary have advised that Stuart Elford was paid £57,500 in salary and housing allowance during the period of his suspension. I am also advised that:(a) no external legal fees were incurred by Devon and Cornwall Constabulary during the course of the investigation;
  (b) the estimated cost of the investigation was £6,500; and
  (c) the Police Complaints Authority do not cost their involvement in individual investigations.

  Police officer strength1

  March

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  20032

  Avon and Somerset

  2,989

  2,976

  2,999

  2,934

  2,994

  3,096

  3,149

  Bedfordshire

  1,094

  1,079

  1,041

  1,028

  1,036

  1,069

  1,106

  Cambridgeshire

  1,302

  1,291

  1,274

  1,237

  1,296

  1,362

  1,384

  Cheshire

  2,046

  2,042

  2,071

  2,011

  2,002

  2,059

  2,119

  Cleveland

  1,459

  1,483

  1,416

  1,404

  1,407

  1,461

  1,582

  Cumbria

  1,144

  1,164

  1,126

  1,084

  1,048

  1,100

  1,140

  Derbyshire

  1,791

  1,772

  1,759

  1,777

  1,823

  1,848

  2,003

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,865

  2,962

  2,887

  2,841

  2,934

  3,053

  3,202

  Dorset

  1,284

  1,310

  1,279

  1,306

  1,354

  1,381

  1,416

  Durham

  1,461

  1,515

  1,568

  1,558

  1,595

  1,614

  1,651

  Essex

  2,961

  2,928

  2,891

  2,806

  2,897

  2,946

  2,989

  Gloucestershire

  1,133

  1,104

  1,104

  1,114

  1,173

  1,183

  1,227

  Greater Manchester

  6,922

  6,949

  6,810

  6,795

  6,909

  7,217

  7,343

  Hampshire

  3,452

  3,490

  3,473

  3,419

  3,438

  3,480

  3,668

  1430W

  Police Grants
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to inform police authorities of the amounts that they will receive from specific grants for the financial year 2004–05. [150632]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 26 January 2004]: Police Authorities are notified of specific grant allocations as soon as they are decided.

  Details of the largest Fund (£277 million), The Crime Fighting Fund, as well as the £30 million Rural Policing Fund, were announced on 19 November. We are shortly to announce allocations for the Street Crime Initiative (£24 million)

  Allocations of Basic Command Unit funding (£50 million) will be announced shortly, as will those for Special Priority Payments which are based on force budgeted paybill returns.

  Police authorities are aware that in 2004–05 they will receive continuation funding (75 per cent.) for Community Support Officers recruited in 2002–03 and 50 per cent. funding for officers who are in some cases still being recruited in 2003–04. Final figures will be announced when the full costs are clear.

  Payments of grant for the London Pay Lead and South East Allowances are based on force returns throughout the year.

  Police Numbers
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many police officers there were in each police force in the United Kingdom in each year since 1997; [152596]

  (2) how many (a) Ministry of Defence police officers, (b) British Transport Police officers, (c) UK Atomic Energy Constabulary officers, (d) Port of Dover Police officers, (e) National Crime Squad officers and (f) police force officers there were in each year since 1997. [152597]

  Ms Blears
  The table gives the number of police officers from 1997 to 2003 in each police force area in England and Wales.

  Information relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
  1431W

  Police officer strength1

  March

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  20032

  Hertfordshire

  1,759

  1,740

  1,724

  1,767

  1,922

  1,825

  1,957

  Humberside

  2,045

  2,021

  1,974

  1,932

  1,917

  2,058

  2,105

  Kent

  3,260

  3,251

  3,201

  3,204

  3,319

  3,355

  3,487

  Lancashire

  3,247

  3,257

  3,245

  3,179

  3,255

  3,304

  3,339

  Leicestershire

  1,949

  1,983

  1,993

  1,993

  2,032

  2,100

  2,114

  Lincolnshire

  1,196

  1,191

  1,140

  1,115

  1,202

  1,198

  1,221

  City of London

  859

  825

  778

  732

  703

  764

  808

  Merseyside

  4,230

  4,216

  4,211

  4,085

  4,081

  4,125

  4,099

  Metropolitan Police

  26,677

  26,094

  26,073

  25,485

  24,878

  26,223

  27,984

  Norfolk

  1,432

  1,430

  1,381

  1,381

  1,420

  1,468

  1,499

  Northamptonshire

  1,177

  1,169

  1,137

  1,117

  1,157

  1,214

  1,210

  Northumbria

  3,677

  3,769

  3,840

  3,788

  3,857

  3,929

  3,942

  North Yorkshire

  1,338

  1,367

  1,337

  1,283

  1,305

  1,417

  1,444

  Nottinghamshire

  2,323

  2,323

  2,225

  2,204

  2,275

  2,330

  2,411

  South Yorkshire

  3,159

  3,182

  3,168

  3,163

  3,197

  3,199

  3,183

  Staffordshire

  2,211

  2,292

  2,238

  2,170

  2,129

  2,133

  2,202

  Suffolk

  1,180

  1,186

  1,190

  1,145

  1,133

  1,203

  1,253

  Surrey

  1,620

  1,608

  1,662

  1,785

  2,066

  1,992

  1,906

  Sussex

  3,085

  2,996

  2,847

  2,822

  2,855

  2,893

  2,989

  Thames Valley

  3,695

  3,776

  3,748

  3,740

  3,703

  3,762

  3,833

  Warwickshire

  926

  924

  908

  900

  926

  969

  997

  West Mercia

  2,040

  2,010

  2,025

  1,887

  1,951

  2,018

  2,256

  West Midlands

  7,113

  7,156

  7,321

  7,194

  7,423

  7,681

  7,751

  West Yorkshire

  5,209

  5,155

  4,982

  4,822

  4,815

  4,889

  5,029

  Wiltshire

  1,154

  1,156

  1,151

  1,118

  1,120

  1,157

  1,158

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,005

  1,002

  1,026

  1,040

  1,055

  1,132

  1,149

  Gwent

  1,243

  1,233

  1,247

  1,264

  1,274

  1,333

  1,341

  North Wales

  1,369

  1,396

  1,391

  1,403

  1,444

  1,506

  1,539

  South Wales

  2,976

  2,986

  2,981

  2,926

  3,154

  3,222

  3,239

  Total

  125,051

  124,756

  123,841

  121,956

  123,476

  127,267

  131,426

  1 Full-time equivalents

  2 Comparable strength

  Police Officers (Sickness Absence)
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the sickness rate for each police force was in the last year for which figures are available. [151600]

  Ms Blears
  Sickness absence rates for the police service from April 2002 to March 2003 were published by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary in his Annual Report for 2003. A copy is available in the Library.

  Prison Accommodation
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many modular temporary units have been erected in prisons in the past five years; and how many prisoners they house, broken down by prison. [153736]

  Paul Goggins
  The number of Modular Temporary Units (MTUs) across the Prison estate in England and Wales stands at 29. Between them, they hold a total of 1,160 prisoners. A breakdown by establishment is given in the table.

  Location

  Number of MTUs

  Number of places

  North Sea Camp

  2

  80

  Hollesley Bay

  2

  80

  Standford Hill

  2

  80

  Wealston

  2

  80

  Highpoint (male)

  2

  80

  Leyhill

  2

  80

  1432W

  Location

  Number of MTUs

  Number of places

  Hatfield

  2

  80

  Spring Hill

  2

  80

  Whatton

  1

  40

  Prescoed

  1

  40

  Wayland

  1

  40

  Stocken

  1

  40

  Channings Wood

  1

  40

  Acklington

  1

  40

  Wymott

  1

  40

  Erlestoke

  1

  40

  New Hall

  1

  40

  Low Newton

  1

  40

  Sudbury

  1

  40

  Kirklevington

  1

  40

  Camp Hill

  1

  40

  Total

  29

  1,160

  Prison Officers
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will change the position whereby a prison officer who has been wounded by a prisoner cannot be told whether that prisoner is HIV positive or carrying hepatitis. [152712]

  Paul Goggins
  As in the national health service, health information is collected in prisons in confidence and may normally be disclosed only with the consent of the person concerned. Prison establishments have been instructed that, where such consent is not given, the confidentiality of prisoners known to be infected with HIV or hepatitis must be protected.
  1433W
  Some prisoners will be unaware of their own medical status. Prison staff have therefore been advised that, in all risk situations, they should proceed on the assumption that any body fluids may be infectious and that universal routine precautions should always be taken.

  The Prison Service's "Health Services for Prisoners" Standard (July 2002) requires all establishments to make sure that written information on communicable disease control policy is available to staff and prisoners, including protocols for the provision of post-exposure prophylaxis. The usual practice would be for the injured person to attend a local hospital for counselling, assessment and, if clinically indicated, treatment.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when the prison officers Mr. Rowland, Mr. Kerry and Mr. Watkins will be allowed back to work; [150817]

  (2) for what reason prison officers Mr. Rowland, Mr. Kerry and Mr. Watkins are suspended; and if he will make a statement. [150819]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 26 January 2004]: Following the end of the criminal trial against Mr. Rowland, Mr. Kerry and Mr. Watkins, the Governor of Elmley will now carry out a review in the case of each of the prison officers, based on all the information available, to see what further action should be taken. The review will be completed as quickly as possible.

  Prisoners
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners aged 65 years and over are serving prison sentences and were convicted after their 65th birthday. [152755]

  Paul Goggins
  At the end of November 2003, there were 689 sentenced prisoners in prison in England and Wales who were aged 65 and above. 403 of these prisoners had been convicted after their 65th birthday.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what percentage of prisoners are studying with the Open University. [152836]

  Paul Goggins
  The Government are committed to providing a range of educational opportunities to meet offenders' needs. From this year we are releasing more funds to support Open University study in order to ensure that we are offering a more balanced curriculum.

  Our focus is primarily on helping offenders to improve their literacy, language and numeracy skills. Nevertheless, 601 Open University courses were taken by prisoners in the academic year 2002–03. This represents 3 per cent. of those prisoners who were involved in education at the end of that academic year.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent steps he has taken to reduce the number of prisoners escaping from prison. [152839]
  1434W
  Paul Goggins
  Against the backdrop of a steadily increasing population, the Prison Service has achieved a much-improved performance on escapes from prison and from escort over the last decade. There have been no escapes by Category A prisoners since 1995. Escapes overall have been driven down from 347 in 1992–93 to 50 in 2002–03. There have been 45 escapes so far in the current financial year. The Public Service Agreement target is that there should be no Category A escapes and that the number of other escapes should not exceed 0.17 per cent. of annual average population. Performance is well within that target. The escape rate in 2002–03 was 0.07 per cent. of annual average population.

  This improvement has been achieved through a range of measures, including investment in physical security technology; tighter procedural security; more effective performance management and audit and a strong lead from senior managers; greater security awareness and good levels of compliance with best practice.

  The Escapes Delivery Plan seeks to ensure that the current good performance is maintained. The plan is managed by a project board, chaired by the Deputy Director General of the Prison Service. Membership includes representatives from the police and the Department for Constitutional Affairs.

  The figures given for escapes relate only to escapes from closed prison or external escorts, mostly to court or hospital. They exclude those where the prisoner was recaptured within 15 minutes.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people aged 60 years and over in England and Wales were(a) convicted of an offence and (b) received a custodial sentence in 2003. [153335]

  Paul Goggins
  The total number of persons aged 60 and over who were convicted of indictable offences in England and Wales in 2002, was 2,324 of whom 620 were sentenced to immediate custody.

  Statistics on court proceedings for 2003 will be published in the autumn.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prisoners aged 65 years and over had long-term illnesses in each year since 1997; [153336]

  (2) if he will make a statement on prison resources directed at the nursing care of prisoners over the age of 65 years. [153338]

  Paul Goggins
  The information requested is not available centrally. Prisons, work in partnership with their local health care partners to assess the health care needs of all prisoners, irrespective of age, and to develop services to meet them.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people(a) of all ages and (b) aged 65 years and over died in prison in each year since 1997. [153337]

  Paul Goggins
  The information requested is provided in the table.
  1435W

  Number of deaths of prisoners aged 64 and under

  Number of deaths of prisoners aged 65 and over

  Total number of deaths of prisoners

  1997

  113

  8

  121

  1998

  128

  10

  138

  1999

  140

  9

  149

  2000

  127

  17

  144

  2001

  120

  21

  141

  2002

  148

  18

  166

  2003

  160

  21

  181

  Total

  936

  104

  1,040

  Deaths in prison remain a rare but distressing event, affecting families, staff and other prisoners deeply. Prisons work in partnership with their local healthcare partners to assess the health care needs of all prisoners, irrespective of age, and to develop services to meet them.

  Sadly, the largest proportion of under-65s who die in custody take their own lives; meanwhile, over-65s are more likely to die of natural causes. Good care and support from staff saves many lives, but such instances go largely unreported. 141 prisoners were resuscitated following self-harm incidents in 2002, and a further 197 prisoners were resuscitated during the first 11 months of 2003, which reflects a lot of staff effort and skill.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many reported incidents of violence there have been against prisoners(a) of all ages and (b) aged 65 years and over in each year since 1997. [153339]

  Paul Goggins
  In April 2003 a new measure of violence toward prisoners was introduced, based on the number of reported serious assaults. This replaced the previous measure, which was based on positive adjudications for assault. Work to improve data quality may have had an impact on the figures reported. Information is not held centrally on those offences towards prisoners aged 65 and over. The figures given in the following table are based on the financial year.

  Serious assault on inmate

  April—December 2003

  611

  2002–03

  582

  2001–02

  507

  2000–01

  534

  1999–2000

  509

  1998–99

  380

  1997–98

  409

  1996–97

  372

  Prisons
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many dogs trained to locate drugs are working in prisons; and how many days those dogs worked in the last 12 months. [152713]

  Paul Goggins
  There are 439 drug dogs working in prisons in England and Wales. Of these 236 are active dogs and 203 are passive dogs. Comprehensive information about the number of days Prison Service drug dogs work is not held centrally and could not be obtained except at disproportionate cost.
  1436W
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Prison Service takes to obtain medical records about a prisoner's mental health from clinicians who have provided treatment prior to imprisonment. [152920]

  Paul Goggins
  Prison establishments were reminded, in guidance issued in May 2002, of the importance of effective information sharing with other agencies, in particular the NHS, in enabling continuity of care. This guidance requires them, generally with the prisoner's consent, to request any information required from a prisoner's general practitioner or other relevant service with which the prisoner has recently been in contact. It also sets out the circumstances in which information may be requested and disclosed without consent.

  Mental health in-reach teams are now operating in 90 establishments with the greatest need, which means that prisoners with a severe mental illness are generally being cared for by the national health service. One of the key elements of this in-reach service is the maintenance of links with outside services in order to achieve continuity of care.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent estimate he has made of the(a) total prison population, (b) number of prisoners on remand and (c) number in each case suffering from severe or acute mental illness. [152943]

  Paul Goggins
  On 30 January 2004, there were 73,688 people in prison in England and Wales, of which 13,173 were remand prisoners. Information on the number of prisoners with severe or acute mental illness is not held centrally.

  Using information collected from a survey of psychiatric morbidity among prisoners in England and Wales undertaken in 1997 by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) it is estimated that there will at any one time be around 5,000 prisoners with a severe mental illness. Not all of these prisoners will necessarily be acutely ill.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he is measuring the success of the three-year Proactive Project to reduce self-harm and suicides in prison; and when the results will be available. [154175]

  Paul Goggins
  Reducing the rate of self-inflicted deaths in prison establishments is an essential part of the Prison Service's decency agenda and a priority for Ministers. The three-year safer custody strategy to develop policies and practices to reduce prisoner suicide and manage self-harm in prisons, implemented from April 2001, has been under review during recent months. Account is being taken of emerging findings from in-house and external researchers, as well as the views of a wide range of practitioners and external interests, including Samaritans, Prison Reform Trust, Howard League and INQUEST.

  I will be announcing the results of this work and next steps in the Spring. A team from the University of Cambridge is measuring the impact of the Safer Locals Programme on the quality of prison life, and investigating possible links between these measures and rates of suicide and self-harm. Early findings suggest

  1437W
  that there are significant associations between levels of prisoner distress and an establishment's rates of self-inflicted death. Aspects of the quality of prison life that are associated with prisoner distress include distress on entry to custody, perceived safety, opportunities for personal development, and perceived fairness.

  A team from Manchester and London Universities is also evaluating elements of the Safer Locals Programme, particularly Health care provision, detoxification services and a workstream called the Care of At-Risk Prisoners (revision of the 'self-harm at risk' From 2052SH) project. Additionally, researchers from the Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science were commissioned to evaluate the impact of Safer Cells on Suicide and self-harm. The evaluation included observations, interview and focus groups with prisoners and staff in six prisons. The report, presented in August 2003, concluded that the safer cells programme has much to commend it and recommended that the programme continue.

  Public Bodies
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who the members of the(a) Community Development Foundation, (b) Criminal Justice Consultative Council, (c) Misuse of Drugs Tribunal, (d) Visiting Committee, Immigration Detention Centre, Harmondsworth, (e) Prison Service Board of Visitors and (f) Visiting Committee, Immigration Detention Centre, Tinsley House were on 1 January; what their term of office is in each case; and whether they are remunerated. [151814]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The table lists the members of the following bodies on 1 January; their term of office; and whether they are remunerated.

  The following should be noted:
  1. The Misuse of Drugs Tribunal has not sat for many years and is obsolete.
  2. It is the practice not to publish the names of the members of the Independent Monitoring Boards (IMB) (legally known as the Boards of Visitors and the Visiting Committees) for reasons of security and because of concerns for their personal safety. There are 1,773 members of the IMB and they are appointed for a maximum of three years, and if their performance is assessed satisfactorily and they wish to continue, they are re-appointed for another three years. IMB members are not remunerated but can claim expenses.

  Community Development Foundation

  Term of office

  Whether remunerated

  Andrew Selous MP

  3 years 1 month

  No

  Andrew Robinson

  3 years

  No

  Suhail Aziz

  3 years

  No

  Michael Hamilton

  3 years 7 months

  No

  Colin Williams QBE

  3 years

  No

  Hilary Willmer

  3 years 7 months

  No

  Abdul Ismail

  3 years 7 months

  No

  Dr Gareth Jones

  3 years 7 months

  No

  Peter Latchford

  3 years

  No

  Professor Ruth Lister CBE

  3 years

  No

  Jogwant Johal

  3 years

  No

  Avila Kilmurray

  3 years

  No

  Mavis Best MBE

  3 years

  No

  1438W

  Criminal Justice Council (formerly the Criminal Justice Consultative Council)

  Term of office

  Whether remunerated

  Lord Justice John Kay (Chair)

  3 years

  No

  Judge Alan Wilkie QC

  3 years

  No

  HHJ Richard Wakerley

  3 years

  No

  Sir David Hatch CBE JP

  3 years

  No

  Dame Helen Reeves DBE

  3 years

  No

  Judge Davinder Lachar

  3 years

  No

  George Mitchell CBE JP

  3 years

  No

  Rodney Warren

  3 years

  No

  Nicholas Purnell QC

  3 years

  No

  Withiel Cole

  3 years

  No

  Professor Di Birch

  3 years

  No

  Professor John Raine

  3 years

  No

  Neil Clarke

  3 years

  No

  Richard Collins

  3 years

  No

  Paul Cavadino

  3 years

  No

  Rape
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on sentencing guidance for rape convictions. [153662]

  Paul Goggins
  The maximum sentence for rape is life imprisonment. Sentences in individual cases are a matter for the courts, taking into account the circumstances of the offence and the offender including all mitigating and aggravating factors.

  It will be possible to sentence offenders to the new sentence of imprisonment for public protection introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 2003. This scheme allows for those who pose a continued risk to the public to be kept in prison for an indeterminate period of time.

  The Sentencing Guidelines Council was also set up by the 2003 Act with the purpose of issuing guidance so as to bring about greater clarity and consistency in sentencing. The council will be considering guidance on sex offences as one of its first priorities.

  Sexual Offenders (Granting of Bail)
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals were charged with serious sexual offences and given bail in each of the last five years. [150801]

  Paul Goggins
  The information requested is not available.

  Estimates of police and magistrates' courts remand decisions for England and Wales, broken down by type of offence (i.e. indictable, summary non-motoring and summary motoring offences), are published in chapter 5 of Criminal Statistics England and Wales 2002 Cm 6054.

  Of those males received into prison during 2002 under an immediate custodial sentence for a sexual offence it is known that 52 per cent. had previously been remanded in custody.

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the Oral Answer to the
  1439W
  hon. Member for Southend, West of 3 February 2004,Official Report, column 615, how much money was raised in fines from (a) speed cameras and (b) speed traps in each year since their inception in (i) Southend, West and (ii) Southend. [153473]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 9 February 2004]: Available information on the number of fixed penalties and court fines ordered to be paid for the offence of `speeding detected by camera' in the calendar years 1997 to 2001 is shown in the table. It is not possible from the data collected centrally to identify Southend, West and Southend within the police force area of Essex.

  Information is not available on speed traps as the police do not use this as an enforcement tool.

  Information for 2002 will be available in the spring.

  Fixed penalty and court proceedings data for all speeding offences detected by cameras1,2 in the Essex police force area, 1997–2001

  Fixed penalties

  Court Proceedings

  Number of tickets3

  Estimated revenue (£)4

  Number of fines

  Total amount of fine (£)

  Average fine (£)5

  1997

  18,800

  753,700

  880

  93,900

  107

  1998

  8,700

  346,600

  1,700

  227,400

  134

  1999

  19,800

  791,400

  2,100

  357,400

  169

  2000

  46,300

  2,007,200

  2,800

  317,800

  115

  2001

  81,900

  4,911,100

  6,500

  651,200

  101

  1 Automatic cameras until 1998, all camera types from 1999.

  2 Offences under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and The Motor Vehicles (Speed Limits on Motorways) Regulations 1973.

  3 Paid, i.e. no further action.

  4 Estimate based on £40 fixed penalty charge to October 2000. From November 2000 the penalty was raised to £60.

  5 Includes cases where fixed penalty notices were originally issued but not paid and subsequently referred to court.

  Note:
  Reliable data only available from 1997 onwards for speeding.
  1440W

  Fixed penalty and court proceedings data for all speeding offences1 in the Essex police force area, 1997–2001

  Fixed penalties

  Court Proceedings

  Number of tickets2

  Estimated revenue (£)2

  Number of fines

  Total amount of fine (£)

  Average fine (£)4

  1997

  48,100

  1,924,900

  5,000

  643,600

  128

  1998

  19,300

  771,300

  4,700

  675,200

  142

  1999

  57,900

  2,315,100

  6,600

  933,900

  141

  2000

  102,300

  4,434,100

  6,300

  774,900

  123

  2001

  168,900

  10,133,100

  9,100

  1,020,100

  112

  1 Offences under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and The Motor Vehicles (Speed Limits on Motorways) Regulations 1973.

  2 Paid, i.e. no further action.

  3 Estimate based on £40 fixed penalty charge to October 2000. From November 2000 the penalty was raised to £60.

  4 Includes cases where fixed penalty notices were originally issued but not paid and subsequently referred to court.

  Schools Liaison Officers
  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which police authorities have appointed schools liaison officers. [153060]

  Ms Blears
  This information is not held centrally. The appointment of schools liaison officers is an operational matter, and is a decision for Chief Officers.

  Tetra Masts
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any applications for planning permission for Tetra masts have described the modulation characteristics as pulsed. [153016]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 5 February 2004]: The Home Office is not directly involved in the mast planning process. Planning applications for the new police radio system, Airwave, are a matter for the network provider, Airwave mmO2.

  The modulation scheme used by Tetra is known as Differential Quaternary Phase Shift Keying (DQPSK).

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Greater London Authority
  The Minister for Housing and Planning(Keith Hill)
  The Greater London authority general grant for 2004–05 today been determined at £36,328,000, following consultation with the Mayor of London. This grant is a block grant paid for the purposes of the authority and its functional bodies.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  National Asylum Support Service
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes)
  On 15 July 2003, I published the key findings from the report of the independent review of the Operation of the National Asylum Support Service (NASS), and I promised a further statement in due course about the action taken in the light of the review. As I indicated in July, the review has formed the basis of a major programme of reform. Progress against that programme continues to be overseen by a steering group chaired by Bill Jeffrey, Director General of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate reporting directly to me. The Steering Group includes an external perspective provided by Alan Barnish who was a member of the independent review team. I am now in a position to update the House on progress which has been made in—implementing this programme, since the review was completed six months ago.

  The review made it clear that some key issues needed to be addressed. It is still the case that NASS faces significant challenges, due, among other factors, to the complexity and visibility of its role. But in the last six months NASS has both raised its performance in a number of specific areas highlighted by the review, and laid the foundations for sustained medium and longer-term improvements across its business as a whole. The timed action plan I referred to in my July statement is now in place.

  Action in relation to Key Findings:

  KEY FINDINGS (1) AND (2);

  For NASS to perform at its best it needs to:

  be clear what is expected of it and how its success will be judged;

  have the financial and managerial resources to do the job;

  have a thorough understanding of its own strengths and weaknesses;

  have a clear view of what it needs to do to improve its performance;

  understand its impact on the whole end to end asylum process;

  54WS

  sort out some of its key business processes and procedures;

  get better at working with the rest of IND in a fully joined up operation.

  NASS needs to have its purpose, aims and role clarified and re-affirmed by Ministers. It needs to be given a realistic remit and the necessary resources and political support to do that job.

  The principles of good performance identified by the review have been accepted and are being applied. NASS's purpose, aim and role have been clarified and reaffirmed by Ministers. Appendix A shows the statement of NASS's purpose, aims and roles (collectively comprising NASS's strategic intent) which have been developed. Appendix A also shows the nine objectives on which NASS is now concentrating its effort upon support of the overall strategic intent.

  KEY FINDING (3):

  NASS needs urgently to improve its operational performance and standards of customer care. It needs to get better at working with its partners and stakeholders, and much slicker at sorting out basic processing errors especially when these affect individual asylum seekers and damage the reputation of the organisation.

  The communications team within NASS has been strengthened and is developing a strategic framework for NASS's contact with external partners and stakeholders. A new National Asylum Support Forum has been established with partner organisations and has met three times since the statement on 15 July.

  Significant improvements have been made to the performance of IND's Telephone Enquiry Bureau (INEB). As part of that, the average time it takes to get through to INEB's cash support helpline has fallen in the past eight months from over three and a half minutes to under one minute.

  KEY FINDING (4):

  NASS needs to strengthen its management capacity at all levels. Two new senior posts have already been created, but more needs to be done in the middle tier of the organisation which is under-resourced and hence weak.

  A new governance structure has been developed and is now in place. The senior management team (SMT) has been strengthened through the appointment of experienced officials to the two new senior civil service posts. A separate and larger programme group is tasked with driving forward the many additional and cross-cutting strands of project-based work within the organisation. The middle tier of the organisation has been strengthened by the delivery, over the period, of management training to 150 NASS managers.

  KEY FINDING (5):

  NASS needs a realistic three-year budget and flexibility in the way it can be used to respond quickly to changing circumstances and opportunities without going through over elaborate bureaucratic processes.

  An appropriate 3-year budget has been put in place together with arrangements for reviewing it, and therefore achieving flexibility within the context of IND's overall budgetary framework.
  55WS
  KEY FINDINGS (6) AND (7):

  NASS needs support to develop and implement a medium term strategy. This must be produced in the context of an overall strategy for IND which clarifies and strengthens the links between NASS and the other parts of the asylum system.

  A medium term plan needs to address:

  What they should be aiming to get out of the next round of accommodation and other contracts;

  What phase 2 of the regionalisation should look like;

  How to work better as an integrated part of IND and develop meaningful relationships with key stakeholders.

  In parallel with addressing the immediate concerns identified by the review, NASS is developing a medium term strategy to ensure improvements are sustained and built upon.

  An IT steering group has been set up within NASS and a NASS IT strategy is being prepared. This work is fully integrated with ongoing IND-wide developments in the field of IT. The Home Secretary announced on 24 October 2003 that families who sought asylum in the UK more than three years ago would be considered for permission to live and work here. In implementing this announcement, we are piloting web-based software which enables NASS, others in IND, and our partners in central and local government, to have real time access to the live information we need to ensure an efficiently managed process.

  A major stakeholder event was held in Woking in November 2003 to look at the challenges and priorities involved in renewing NASS's contracts with accommodation providers, many of which will expire in 2005. We are currently considering how to put the Woking recommendations into practice.

  The first phase of regionalisation has successfully been rolled out and most of the necessary embedding of functions has been completed. NASS is now managing housing management, outreach and investigation work from its new regional locations. As a result there is much more face to face contact between the organisation and supported asylum seekers. Through the establishment of these closer links and those with its key partners, positive steps have already been taken to improve service delivery and to ensure that wider issues are dealt with more effectively.

  Planning is now underway for the second phase. This will focus on improving the services currently provided centrally by NASS to dispersed asylum seekers through a wholesale review of current arrangements for managing casework. I believe this will be much welcomed by many of the key stakeholders concerned. This is a large and complex area of activity and will require a staged programme of work to ensure an effective transfer of functions.

  KEY FINDINGS (8) AND (9):

  NASS needs a period of stability to enable it to get on top of the job. It also needs confidence that it will not have to cope with any new initiatives and reviews without adequate time and resources to handle and implement them safely.
  56WS
  NASS needs to be allowed to use the breathing space provided by the drop in intake numbers to get on top of the job, not to take on new tasks.

  Especial care is being taken to avoid allocating tasks to NASS which are not fully within its role and for which it is not equipped.

  NASS's strategic intent comprises its purpose, aim and role, as follows:

  Purpose—to provide a system of basic support to eligible asylum seekers;

  Aim—to provide a system that is cost effective and which contributes to cohesive communities and to effective integration for those who are granted asylum;

  Role—to;

  arrange provision of accommodation to asylum seekers for the period they qualify;

  arrange provision of subsistence payments to asylum seekers for the period they qualify;

  work with the rest of IND to deliver an effective end to end asylum process, and to work in partnership with other agencies to deliver the above.

  NASS' s strategic objectives are to:

  improve day to day business performance;

  reduce support costs;

  fully engage and develop our staff;

  improve responsiveness to queries relating to asylum support;

  deliver effective and efficient regionalisation;

  deliver appropriate and cost effective accommodation for asylum seekers;

  deliver our business in a way which supports community cohesion;

  improve linkages with other parts of the asylum process;

  engage better with stakeholders and improve communications.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs(Mr. Ben Bradshaw)
  At last year's National Farmers Union annual general meeting the Secretary of State announced a review of our bovine tuberculosis strategy. Today I am launching a consultation document that represents the outcome of the first stage of that review. The consultation period will last for 12 weeks and close on Tuesday 4 May 2004.

  Copies of the consultation document are available in the Libraries of both Houses and can also be viewed on the Department's website at www.defra.gov.uk/ animalh/tb/index.htm

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Spring Supplementary Estimates
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate the Department for International Development DEL for 2003–04 will be
  57WS
  increased by £197,583,000 from £3,756,454,000 to £3,954,037,000 and the administration costs limit has been increased by £2,566,000 from £212,250,000 to

  (£'000)

  Resources

  Capital

  Change

  New DEL

  Of which:voted

  Non-voted

  Change

  New DEL

  Of which:voted

  Non-voted

  170,083

  3,936,037

  3,064,152

  871,885

  27,500

  39,000

  39,000

  —

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from

  RfR 1: Eliminating Poverty in Poorer Countries
  A transfer of £15 million from the unallocated subhead to the reducing poverty in the rest of the world subhead
  The take up of DEL end year flexibility for 2002–03 of £102,791,000 resource for programme costs. £41,395,000 has been allocated to the reducing poverty in Africa subhead, £40,896,000 to the improve the effectiveness of multilateral aid;
  A transfer of £1,500,000 resource from the reducing poverty in Asia administration subhead to the reducing poverty in Africa administration subhead;
  A transfer of £1 million resource from the reducing poverty in the rest of the world administration subhead to the reducing poverty in Africa administration subhead;
  A transfer of £1,500,000 resource from the developing innovative approaches to development administration subhead to the programmes contributing to multiple objectives administration subhead;
  A transfer of £6,500,000 resource from the central reserve as a contribution to Iraq reconstruction to the reducing poverty in the rest of the world subhead;
  A transfer of £15 million resource from the improve effectiveness of multilateral aid subhead to capital DEL; £13,240,000 to the reducing poverty in the rest of the world subhead and £1,760,000 to the reducing poverty in Africa subhead;
  A transfer of £1,050,000 resource from the reducing poverty in Africa subhead to capital DEL. £530,000 to the reduce poverty in Africa capital subhead, £270,000 to the reducing poverty in the rest of the world subhead and £250,000 to the central departments subhead;
  A transfer of £1,050,000 resource from the reducing poverty in Asia subhead to capital DEL. £210,000 to the reduce poverty in Asia capital subhead, £40,000 to the reducing poverty in the rest of the world subhead, £120,000 to the developing innovative approaches to development subhead, £170,000 to the programmes contributing to multiple objectives subhead and £510,000 to the central departments subhead;
  A transfer of £950,000 resource from the reducing poverty in the rest of the world subhead to capital DEL, central department subhead; A transfer of £910,000 resource from sub-Saharan Africa conflict prevention non-voted departmental unallocated provision to the Ministry of Defence;
  A transfer of £11 million resource from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the global conflict prevention subhead.

  The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from:
  transfers from the resource to the capital budget as listed above;
  to reflect an expected reduction of £8,400,000 appropriation-in-aid in the capital DEL, and a corresponding reduction in the gross capital provision;
  58WS
  £214,816,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  the take up capital DEL end year flexibility for 2001–02 of £8,621,000; £8,400,000 has been allocated to the improve efficiency of multilateral aid subhead and £221,000 to the central departments subhead.

  The increase will be met by inter-departmental transfers or from the DEL Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

TREASURY

  Economic Reform in the EU
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer(Mr. Gordon Brown)
  The Government are today publishing a new report on economic reform in the EU.

  The report evaluates the progress made in reforming Europe's economy since the March 2000 Lisbon European Council, noting both the EU's achievements over the past four years, and the scale of the challenge ahead if Europe is to compete effectively in the global economy and meet its goals of higher productivity, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. It notes that, while 6 million jobs have been created in Europe since 1999, a further 21 million are needed to meet the Union's target for 2010. Moreover, productivity in the US remains at least 14 per cent. higher than that in the EU.

  The report concludes that further action is needed to improve efficiency and productivity in Europe, with steps to promote increased labour, product and capital market flexibility. It sets out a series of areas for reform ahead of the forthcoming spring European Council, including to improve the regulatory framework in Europe, strengthen the single market, deliver more and better jobs, promote enterprise and innovation, ensure an ambitious outcome to world trade negotiations, strengthen the transatlantic economic relationship, and meet the challenge of sustainable development.

  Copies of the report are available in the Vote Office and the Library of the House.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Serious Organised Crime Agency
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department(Mr. David Blunkett)
  Since 1997 crime in England and Wales has fallen by a quarter. The chances of being a victim of crime are now at their lowest for over 20 years. At the same time, we continue to face a major challenge from organised crime which costs the country billions of pounds in lost revenue, facilitates 70 per cent. of all illegal immigration to the European Union and can cause local communities huge damage, for example through its link with local drugs markets and all the
  59WS
  problems of addiction and crime that go with them. The UK crack and heroin markets alone are estimated to be worth £3 billion per year.

  Organised criminals are willing to resort to extreme violence, intimidation and corruption to protect their illegal businesses. They often display detailed awareness of law enforcement methods and take sophisticated counter-measures including counter-surveillance techniques and elaborate money laundering arrangements. Through their involvement in people trafficking, organised criminals exploit the vulnerable and deal in human misery as appears to be the case in the tragic events at Morecambe Bay at the end of last week. They use every legal device available to them to evade prosecution when they are arrested.

  Responsibility for tackling organised crime has until now been spread across a range of different agencies. Each of them has been highly effective in their own area of specialism—and I pay tribute to the outstanding work they and their staff have undertaken to date—but each must also work within its own priorities and departmental structures. This can make co-ordination difficult and has led to blurred lines of accountability in some key areas like drugs and fraud and to a lack of critical mass in some important skill areas like those required to tackle financial and other economic crime.

  In response to these issues, the Prime Minister announced last July that the Government would be reviewing the structures of our national law enforcement agencies responsible for investigating serious organised crime.

  Over the past six months we have undertaken detailed consultations with all those involved in fighting organised crime, including the police service and all of the relevant national agencies and regulators. The clear view from almost all we consulted was that the present arrangements were not satisfactory and that there was a strong case for rationalising existing structures.

  I can therefore today announce the next step in this process. Drawing on the lessons from this consultation we intend to bring together in a single national agency—the Serious Organised Crime Agency—which will report to me, the responsibilities which currently fall to the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the National Crime Squad, the Home Office's responsibilities for organised immigration crime and the investigation and intelligence responsibilities of HM Customs and Excise in tackling serious drug trafficking and recovering related criminal assets. The agency will also bring a new focus to bear on dealing with the problem of financial crime.

  The creation of the new agency is a key part of a wider series of changes including new powers available to tackle organised crime. I will set out the detail of all these changes in a statement to the House when I publish a policy paper within the next few weeks.

  The new agency will have as its core objective reducing the harm caused to the UK and its citizens by organised crime including the trafficking of drugs and people. It will have the capabilities to make a real difference through enhanced intelligence, financial investigation skills, economic analysis and better and more sophisticated use of technology. It will develop a comprehensive strategy for reducing the harm caused by organised crime and will be much more than the sum of
  60WS
  its parts, drawing on best practice and skills from all the existing agencies to focus on those criminals and criminal markets causing us the most harm. It will work very closely with the revenue departments which will continue to be responsible for tackling revenue and tax fraud. It will build on the determination, professionalism and success of the existing agencies and their staff and will be approaching 5,000 strong.

  The new agency will work closely with police forces, regulators and others throughout the UK. Its focus will be on crime that crosses national and international frontiers. But, where a request is made, or where it is otherwise agreed, it will also have a key role in supporting individual police forces in tackling crime that crosses police force boundaries. It will provide intelligence from criminal activity to the wider law enforcement community, drawing on the intelligence they themselves provide in developing a firm understanding and strategy.

  The agency will have a UK-wide remit. However, in Scotland and Northern Ireland, the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency and the police service of Northern Ireland will continue to exercise the functions they currently undertake in partnership with existing UK agencies.

  Specialist prosecutors answerable to the Attorney General will co-operate closely with officers of the new agency and work alongside them wherever this makes good operational sense. They will be available whenever required to provide comprehensive, practical and specialist advice to help shape investigations and develop strong and well-presented cases for prosecution. The specialist prosecutors will stay with each case from the outset of investigations right through to the point of sentence.

  The arrangements for the agency's governance will be crucial. A Home Office-led taskforce, including representatives of those who will form part of the new organisation, will consult stakeholders on this and report back by the end of this month enabling me to give further details to the House in the statement to which I have already referred. The agency will need high powered and dynamic leadership to ensure it becomes a world leader in its field, so I am today appointing an executive search agency to help us recruit a Chairman and Director-General, with a view to having them in place by the early summer.

  Until their appointment, representatives of all the agencies concerned will be driving forward the transition process, under Home Office chairmanship, to enable the agency to get off to a rapid and effective start.

  We shall take the earliest opportunity to seek Parliament's approval for the legislation needed to establish the Serious Organised Crime Agency but will seek as far as possible to anticipate the benefits of these changes through closer joint working and operations, training and secondments so that this transitional phase enhances rather than disrupts this critical work.

  Those who seek to damage our country and undermine our way of life through organised crime will continue to grow in expertise and sophistication. We must more than match them and ensure that the skills and insights we have developed in different areas are shared. These proposals will enable us to respond to these challenges effectively in the years ahead.

DEFENCE

  Veterans
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  I am announcing the launch today of "Heroes Return". This forms a central element of what has now become the "Veterans Reunited" programme, and will enable all generations to join together to remember and commemorate the 60th anniversary of the remarkable events of 1944 and 1945 that led to the end of the Second World War.

  The New Opportunities Fund in collaboration with the Department for Culture Media and Sport and the Ministry of Defence has made available £10 million of National Lottery funding for many thousands of veterans to return to the overseas areas in which they saw active service during the second world war. These visits will generate a rich supply of "living memories" for our schools and museums and young people will have the opportunity to learn from veterans experiences.

  In addition to the crucial role of the New Opportunities Fund and DCMS, the Veterans Agency will provide applicants with advice and support through their free phone helpline on 0800 169 2277, and further information is available on the website at www.veteransagency.mod.uk.

CABINET OFFICE

  Regulation Task Force Report: "Independent Regulators"
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander)
  I am today publishing the Government's response to the Better Regulation Task Force's report "Independent Regulators", which the task force issued on 15 October 2003. I would like to take this opportunity to thank them for the work they have undertaken in producing their report, and to welcome the recommendations they have made, all 14 of which have been accepted by the Government.

  In our response, we have emphasised our support for regulators to adopt the five principles of good regulation, and the code of practice on consultation; and to produce regulatory impact assessments for any new policies or initiatives which they originate. We commend the use of the enforcement concordat by relevant regulators. Government will consider very carefully the scope and scale of existing regulators before establishing a new one, and assess regularly their continuing effectiveness once established. We are to carry out a review of the variety and complexity of public bodies sponsored by central Government Departments, and this will encompass consideration of regulatory bodies.

  The task force has rightly highlighted the point that the subject of the report was 'independent' regulators, so Government's role is to encourage, support and guide the regulators in their tasks, not to enforce rules and procedures. It is also the case that independent regulators are a very disparate band of bodies, so it would be impossible to produce a one size fits all set of very detailed responses. We must also be wary of
  62WS
  increasing the costs of and burdens on the regulatory community, and those whom they regulate, unless we can be satisfied of the value of the outcomes achieved.

  Copies of the report and the Government's response are available in the Libraries of both Houses, and will be available on the Better Regulation Task Force's website at:-http://www.brtf.gov.uk/taskforce/pastreports.htm.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Rights of Way (Crime Prevention)
  The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael)
  At a seminar in London later today, I will be announcing the names of those authorities whose nominated areas will included in a second designation order under section 118B of the Highways Act 1980. My Department and the Home Office are jointly sponsoring the seminar, which deals with crime reduction on rights of way. Over 180 delegates from local authorities, the police and crime and disorder reduction partnerships are expected to attend.

  Designation will enable these highway authorities to make orders to close or divert rights of way to prevent crime. The designation order will be subject to the negative resolution procedure and will be laid as quickly as possible so that authorities can begin to use their new powers as soon as possible.

  Two of the authorities concerned—Hillingdon and Leeds—were deferred from the first round of applications to give them the opportunity to provide the required level of evidence that rights of way in those areas are facilitating crime.

  The remainder are all new applications received since last year. These are from Brighton and Hove, Middlesbrough, Nottingham, Oldham, York, Swale and the Wirral. A list of the authorities and the areas is set out below.

  The quality of applications was very good and I am satisfied that in each of these areas there are very real problems with crime associated with the public rights of way, and that other means of crime prevention had been tried and had failed.

  Tackling crime and antisocial behaviour remains one of the Government's top priorities. This announcement today is very good news for the many people living in areas such as these which are blighted by burglary, robbery, drug dealing and general antisocial behaviour.

  I have written to each of the nine authorities to inform them of my decision. I have also written to those Members of Parliament whose constituencies are directly affected to let them know what has been decided.

  It remains my view that, in general rights of way do not cause or facilitate crime, but that we need to act vigorously where there is a connection.

  63WS

  Authority (9 in total)

  Areas (20 areas)

  Brighton and Hove City Council

  Whitehawk Estate

  London Borough of Hillingdon

  Frankie's Alley

  Leeds City Council

  1. Seacroft, Halton Ward

  2. St Alban's Estate, Burmantofts Ward

  3. St Martin's Gardens, Chapel Allerton Ward

  4. University Ward

  5. Wensley Green, Chapel Allerton Ward

  6. Seacroft Ward

  7. Calverley Gardens, Bramley Ward

  Middlesbrough Council

  Keswick Grove

  Nottingham City Council

  Rise Park

  Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council

  1. Werneth/Hollinwood

  2. St Paul's/Alexandra

  3. East Oldham—St Mary's/Waterhead/Lees

  Swale Borough Council

  Marine Town

  York City Council

  1. South Bank

  2. The Groves

  3. Clifton/Bootham

  Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council

  1. Wallasey

  2. Tranmere (Rock Ferry and New Ferry)

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Liberia
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell)
  With the support of Her Majesty's Government, the United Nations Security Council on 22 December 2003 unanimously adopted United Nations Security Council resolution 1521(2003). The resolution revised the determination for the basis of sanctions against Liberia—UNSCR 1343(2001) was based on Liberia's64WS
  (in particular former President Charles Taylor and the former Government of Liberia) threat to Sierra Leone. The new resolution is based on Liberia's instability and the threat of proliferation of arms and armed non-State actors (including mercenaries) and their potential threat to the greater sub-region. The measures against Liberia remain the same: an arms embargo, a travel ban, a timber ban and a diamond embargo. The lift criteria have been revised. The travel ban will be started from scratch and include those who constitute a threat to the peace process in Liberia, or who are engaged in activities aimed at undermining peace and stability in Liberia and the sub-region (including senior members of former President Charles Taylor's Government and their spouses and members of Liberia's former armed forces who retain links to former President Charles Taylor).

  Sudan
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell)
  With the support of Her Majesty's Government, the original council decision 94/165/CFSP of 15 March 1994 imposing a EU arms embargo against Sudan was repealed and replaced by common position CFSP/31/2004 on 9 January 2004. A council regulation will follow shortly. The embargo prohibits(a) the delivery or supply of arms and related matériel to Sudan; (b) the provision of technical assistance, brokering services and other services related to military activities and to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of arms and related matériel to any person, entity or body in. or for use in, Sudan; and (c) the provision of financing or financial assistance related to military activities to any person, entity or body, in or for use in. Sudan. Exemptions to the embargo are permitted for non-lethal military equipment intended solely for humanitarian or protective use, institution building programmes of the UN, EU and European Community, for matériel intended for EU and UN crisis management, for de-mining equipment and matériel for use in de-mining operations, and for the provision of financing, financial assistance and technical assistance related to such equipment.

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

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, before business begins, may I take the opportunity to inform the House that I will be attending a ministerial Cabinet Committee on Tuesday 10 February? Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Genetically Modified Crops
2.37 p.m.
Lord Taverne Lord Taverne asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to reply to the recommendations made by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) on the planning of genetically modified crops.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment advised on the implications of the farm-scale evaluation results last month. We are now considering this advice in consultation with the devolved administrations and will set out our conclusions shortly.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, will the Government take into account not only the advice of the committee, but also the profound concern about the future of plant biology in this country which was expressed in a letter to the Prime Minister from 114 leading scientists and supported by 150 international scientists?
Will the Government also take note of the fact that the German Minister of Agriculture, the greenest of Greens, who originally wanted to cover the whole of Europe in organic farms, has announced that he is introducing a law to license GM crops and has declared that there is no health risk to consumers? if the German Greens have seen the light, surely the Government will not allow our own eco-fundamentalists to stand in their way.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord's evangelism on this topic is fairly well known. We take seriously into account the concerns of the scientists. We also have to take into account the concerns of others in this respect, which is partly what our consultation was about. It was partly what we expected the ACRE advice to take into account and indeed it has.
916
The Government's approach to the issue has always been a balanced one. The German Government are clearly following through the necessities of the European legislation on that front, as indeed are we.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that while consumers, farmers and retailers will base their own decisions about GM crops and foods on a variety of personal reasons, the Government, in their regulatory role, must ensure that they keep to an evidence-based and scientifically based approach if they are to fulfil their responsibilities? Does he further agree that whether or not we grow GM crops in this country is not a matter of life and death to British agriculture, but it could be exactly that in parts of the developing world?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, while the arguments on the latter point are still subject to some dispute, there appear to be situations where the development of GM crops would help in development matters. The British Government need to bear that in mind.
Our own policy is evidence based, which is why we conducted the farm-scale trials in the first place and why the results from those trials on each individual crop should be taken into account before announcing a decision. The Government's approach has always been a precautionary one, but based on the facts of the case and on the way in which we approach the overall development of science in agriculture and in the development of these crops in particular.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, if the reason for rejecting GM crops for general use is the damage that their cultivation appears to do to biodiversity, what advice do the Government have for farmers when everything a farmer does by way of food production deliberately reduces biodiversity?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the relative effects on biodiversity are precisely what the farm-scale trials were designed to discover: whether there was a particular or more serious effect on biodiversity and other environmental impacts of cultivating these particular GM crops than there was in relation to conventional crops of equivalent species. Yes, all farming changes the environment in which it operates, but the question is how far any particular form of farming does it in a more damaging way or a less damaging one.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, will the Minister consider further trials before releasing GM crops into the environment? He will know that the trials conducted by his department had very mixed results indeed. Will his department respect the view of the National Assembly for Wales in relation to GM crops?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we always respect the views of the National Assembly for Wales, but whether we agree with them or not will vary. The trials were on three specific crops for the particular reason that we wanted to draw general lessons from them. If further

917
trials are needed, we will engage in them. However, we have a fair amount of information on the three crops involved.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, my noble friend says that the jury is still out on the usefulness of GM crops in places where people do not have enough food to eat. Does he agree that in China and India rice crops have been enormously increased by GM techniques?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, yes, I believe that that is true, although some would argue that there are some downsides to that. I am not arguing that there is no benefit and I am seriously concerned that if we prevented GM crops being developed in Europe, there may be a serious development impact on third world countries. Nevertheless, one has to take into account the overall environmental and economic effects on growth in those countries as well as in the UK.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, when considering this matter, will the Government take into account the distance that wind-borne pollen and insect-borne pollen can travel? How far do the Government estimate that pollen can be taken by the wind and insects?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, if we go ahead with growing GM crops, the Government clearly have to take into account the co-existence rules between GM and other crops. We must take into account the degree to which other, conventional crops may be vulnerable to contamination—without using that as a pejorative term—by GM seed. The distance will depend on the topography and the crops involved, so there is no general answer to the noble Lord's question.

Smoking in Public Places
2.44 p.m.
Lord Janner of Braunstone Lord Janner of Braunstone asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will now introduce legislation to ban smoking in public places throughout the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, the Government have consistently said that smoke-free public places are the ideal, but there are no plans to ban smoking in public places. It is important to listen to different views on any ban on smoking at work or in public places, including whether any such ban is a matter best left to local decision. We look forward to faster and more substantial progress on smoke-free places from employers and businesses, especially the hospitality industry.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, how many people does my noble friend estimate die as a result of smoking in the UK every year; and what percentage of
918
such lives have been estimated as likely to be saved if smoking were banned in public places? Is he aware that in a recent poll in London, 78 per cent of respondents were in favour of banning smoking in public places indoors? Surely it would help enormously if such a ban were imposed to save lives, as has been done in Ireland, New York, Finland and elsewhere. Why are the Government waiting when they accept that the case for banning is without question vital and could save so many lives?
Lord Warner: My Lords, we know that many millions of people have died as a result of tobacco smoking. The number from second-hand smoking is somewhat smaller, although we know that second-hand smoking contributes substantially to lung cancer and heart disease in particular places.
The Government have engaged in a major public education exercise on second-hand smoking, which forms an important part of making people aware of its dangers. For example, we launched our "Smoking Kids" TV advert last summer for that public awareness purpose. We do not think it appropriate to engage in a national ban in public places although, as I said, we are interested to know how much progress is being made in that area locally.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport displayed a touching faith in enlightened self-interest in the hospitality industry in a recent article in the Times. When will the Government wake up to the views of the Chief Medical Officer?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the Government always pay extremely close attention to the views expressed by the Chief Medical Officer. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and my honourable friend the Minister for Public Health met representatives from the hospitality sector on 5 February—last Thursday—and the sector representatives agreed to come back to the table with proposals for faster and more substantial progress in two months. It is worth bearing in mind that the Laurel Pub Company already has non-smoking pubs and is considering expanding the number of such outlets.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, first, if the Government think that something is ideal—I am putting the Minister's words back to him—why do they not take some action on it? Secondly, the Government interfere—well, perhaps not interfere, but get involved—in other areas where lives can be saved; for example, ensuring that people who drive motorbikes wear helmets and that seat belts are fitted in motor cars. That is all done with the intention of saving lives. Why are they not prepared to do something in this area to save even more lives?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the Government's record in this area is strong. We have introduced a comprehensive ban on most forms of tobacco advertising. We have introduced quitters programmes

919
in the National Health Service. That is government action. The most notable quitter is my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health. I am sure that the House will want to congratulate him on that. As I said, we are developing public awareness through advertising campaigns and have seen good achievements through the voluntary process in the workplace: 86 per cent of workplaces have now banned smoking or have smoke-free areas.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, bearing in mind that, as the noble Lord, Lord Janner, said, the risks of active and passive smoking to human health are enormous, and that the definition of a public, place may cause difficulty in legislation, will the Government at least consider introducing legislation to ban smoking in all areas where food is served; and to make it incumbent on those who own bars, restaurants and similar places to ensure that there are smoke-free areas?
Lord Warner: My Lords, we will take into account the noble Lord's suggestions as part of the ongoing public debate. It is worth bearing in mind that we are working with around 30 cities, including Birmingham, Manchester and Brighton, so that they can become smoke-free. It is an important issue for many localities and best taken forward for the local area.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, can my noble friend expand a little on his answer to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about the Government's dissatisfaction with the progress made by the hospitality industry in the implementation of the Public Places Charter? Is he saying that, effectively, it has two months to put its house in order and that at the end of that period we shall see firm government action to deal with the problem of smoking in the workplace and public places?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I do not want my noble friend to get too carried away, but I said that we expected more, and faster, progress in the hospitality industry. My right honourable friend made clear the Government's expectations. We shall wait to see what comes forward from the hospitality industry in two months' time.
Earl Howe: My Lords, in autumn 2000 the Health and Safety Executive drafted an approved code of practice on smoking in the workplace that would cover practically all enclosed places that the public might ever enter. Are the Government still considering whether to adopt that code? If so, why have they so far taken three and a half years to do so?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the Government are still considering the question of an approved code of practice. The Health and Safety Executive has been asked to look further at the costs as they affect small business in the hospitality sector. As I said earlier, over 50 per cent of people's workplaces are free of smoke, which is an increase of about 10 per cent from 1996. In
920
addition, some 36 per cent limit smoking to specific areas only. Effectively, that means that in 86 per cent of workplaces smoking is banned throughout or limited to smoking rooms or areas.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Government appear to be becoming increasingly lenient about cannabis. Do they envisage cannabis-smoking being allowed in public places in future when tobacco smoking is not?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness is well aware of the Government's policy on cannabis. It has not been decriminalised.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, given that 28 per cent of the population smoke, surely to follow the wording of the noble Lord's Question would mean criminalising a huge proportion of the population. I urge my noble friend to consider the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, to see whether it is possible to come up with a much clearer definition that would lead to smoke-free environments in food and other outlets but would not take us down the route of causing the police and other agencies to be involved in behaviour that until now has been legal. If the wording of the noble Lord's Question were followed, that would lead to about 12 million people becoming liable to criminalisation.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his helpful suggestion. I intended to indicate that we would consider the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, as part of the public debate. The House will be aware that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health announced that there would be a consultation exercise on public health more generally. I do not think that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary would welcome the criminalisation of another 12 million people.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, will the noble Lord, who has spoken of the costs of having to change the existing laws, not consider that it is relatively cheap to erect a notice that says. "No smoking on these premises"?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I tried to say to the House in an earlier answer that we know, for example, of one pub group that is creating "no smoking" areas in its pubs.

Heavy Goods Vehicles: Speed Limits
2.54 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as president of the Heavy Transport Association.

921
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to alleviate the problem of heavy goods vehicles travelling at 56 miles per hour in order to overtake other similar vehicles, thereby blocking two lanes of a motorway or dual carriageway.\
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, there is no evidence to suggest that this is a significant problem. Speed limits for heavy goods vehicles are set at a limit that allows free movement of traffic at sensible speeds without compromising road safety. The only areas where problems may arise are on gradients or very busy stretches of motorway. In those areas crawler and additional lanes are generally present to alleviate potential problems caused by slow vehicles.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Will not the situation be far worse by 2008, as EU Directive 2002/85 will require all goods vehicles over three and a half tonnes to be fitted with speed limiters? What will be the aggregate extra cost of doing that, and how many deaths or serious injuries will be prevented?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the last two questions would involve extremely difficult calculations. Over the 10-year period in which speed limiters for heavy goods vehicles above those limits have been in force, the accident rate has dropped by one third. However, we recognise that other factors beyond limiters come into play. There is no doubt that this is an enhanced safety measure. It is being imposed throughout Europe.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that having lorries overtake at up to 56 miles per hour on a motorway slows cars also, and, in the absence of their having speed limiters, which I hope will be introduced one day, contributes to their keeping to the speed limit?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, speed limiters enforce compliance with speed limits by heavy goods vehicles. As my noble friend indicated, that can have consequential beneficial effects on the average speeds of motorcars. My noble friend will also recognise that, irrespective of the speed at which any one vehicle travels, if the differential between the two vehicles is limited, it still takes quite a long time for one vehicle to pass another.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, the noble Lord must travel on roads different from those that I use. Does he admit that many vehicles travel without their speed governors working and certainly exceed 56 miles per hour? I am often tailgated at 70 miles per hour by vehicles exceeding the speed limit. What steps are the enforcement authorities taking to check that limiters
922
are working and fitted, and what action, if any, is taken to enforce lorry speed limits on motorways and other roads?
Lord Davits of Oldham: My Lords, I emphasise that speed limiters govern only powered speeds; therefore, vehicles can sometimes travel faster. They are not governors; they are limiters. Vehicles can travel faster in favourable conditions; for example, if the engine were disengaged it would go faster downhill, and there are all sorts of dangerous ploys. That is why the noble Lord is right in saying that it is possible, even with limiters, for such vehicles to break the law. We are concerned to ensure through our inspection staff that limiters are properly fitted to all vehicles. As the noble Lord will recognise, there are increased measures to ensure that speed limits are complied with.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the practice of overtaking on the inside is far more dangerous than having to wait behind a slow vehicle? What are the Government doing to alleviate the problem?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, overtaking on the inside is against the law. Significant stretches of our motorways are under surveillance. The driver of a vehicle who deliberately comes up behind another vehicle in a middle or outside lane and then swerves inside to overtake could easily be charged with careless driving.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will the noble Lord kindly write to me—he will not have the information at his fingertips—to say when it was made illegal to overtake on the inside? Many of us have been saying that it should be made illegal but were told that it would not be done.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the actual manoeuvre of one vehicle going past another in the inside lane because there might be a slow-down in the outside lane, and the inside lane is continuing to move, is not illegal. Deliberately setting out to pass a vehicle by moving from one lane to another to go inside it and to go past leaves open the possibility that such a manoeuvre appears to be careless driving, and it could be subject to such a charge.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if vehicles travel within about 10 per cent of each other's speed, the roads are much safer? Therefore, by slowing lorries down, there are higher closing rates, which make roads less safe. It would be far safer to have lorries travelling at the same speed as the normal traffic on those roads.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, everyone in the House is aware of the crucial statistic, which is the braking distance of a lorry at a speed comparable to a car—it is many times greater. That is why heavy goods

923
vehicles need restrictions. They both take much longer to brake from the same speed, and they have far more devastating effects when they collide with others.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, do the Government record centrally the number of prosecutions that take place of those lorry drivers who exceed the speed limit on motorways; and if not, why not?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the issue of breaking speed limits is coming under increasing scrutiny, but the noble Baroness will recognise that the main priority is the overall limit of speed on a motorway, which is scrutinised with great care. As I indicated in my earlier answer, limiters on vehicles are inspected, and they have the effect of ensuring that power cannot be applied beyond 56 miles per hour for heavy goods vehicles.

Sudan: Darfur Province
3.1 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking, through the United Nations Security Council, to halt the conflict in Darfur, western Sudan.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the situation in Darfur has not been raised in the United Nations Security Council. However, we are working with others, including our European partners, to explore the possible ways in which we could help to end the conflict. We are in close touch with Sudanese Government Ministers, and the various Darfur movements. We are urging them to re-establish a ceasefire, preferably with international monitoring, to allow humanitarian access and to seek a solution through dialogue.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, would the Minister agree that with 650,000 people internally displaced, 115,000 refugees in Chad, and over 3,000 killed so far, this phenomenon is an overwhelming humanitarian disaster? Where is the integrated response by African states and the international community, to use the UN Secretary-General's phrase, to the machine-gunning and bombing of a civilian population?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the figures are very much as the noble Lord has given them, and we have discussed this twice in the past couple of weeks: on 15 and 28 January. It is not always easy to persuade others to see the problem as we see it. The noble Lord will recall that we were very disappointed that despite our hard work, and that of our EU partners, the EU-sponsored resolution on the Sudan in the UN Commission on Human Rights was lost on 16 April last year. We, and others, continue to work hard through the Secretary-General's special representative for humanitarian affairs in Sudan,
924
Mr Tom Vraalsen, and the EU presidency, and we will continue to work hard to try to find a peaceful solution to this appalling conflict.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, would the Minister care to comment on the relationship between the conflict in Darfur and a peace settlement between north and south Sudan?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I find it difficult to go into that detail at the moment. Clearly, we are looking for a number of different solutions. As the right reverend Prelate will know, the peace discussions on the full problem in the Sudan are due to resume on 17 February. The Darfur problem has always been a separate issue because it involves different groups who are in a state of rebellion against the Government of Sudan.
At the moment, we are concentrating on the resumption of those peace talks on 17 February. We recognise that the situation in Darfur is also very serious. That is why, in relation to the Department for International Development and Mr Alan Goulty of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, special representatives are in discussions on an almost daily basis about how to take this issue forward. I am sorry that I cannot give the right reverend Prelate a direct read-across from one set of discussions to another. I assure him that we are very heavily engaged in trying to resolve this appalling conflict.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, is the Minister aware that since December, some 48,000 refugees have fled from Darfur into Chad, adding to those who were already there; and that last year, the UNHCR asked for 10.3 million dollars for 2004 to deal with this very serious situation, and has so far received nothing? Could the Minister raise this as a matter of acute urgency? As she knows, the suffering in Chad as a result of the fighting in Darfur is severe.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am aware that since we discussed this on 15 January in the debate proposed by the noble Baroness, the situation in Darfur has deteriorated very badly. As she said, there are currently thought to be about 600,000 people internally displaced, with a further 100,000 having lied to Chad. The problem, as we have discussed in this House, is that of trying to get a realistic picture of what is happening on the ground. The violence in Darfur is such that it is difficult to get access to, and therefore an understanding of, the full extent of the seriousness of the humanitarian crisis.
We are trying to assess all the requirements, and civilian protection is a major concern. The DflD's humanitarian adviser for Africa, Mr Simon Mansfield, was in the region a short while ago making such an assessment, and I understand that he is visiting the Chad region today to ensure that he gets a fully rounded picture.
Lord Judd: My Lords, while recognising that the Government are working immensely hard, together

925
with their European partners, in trying to find a way forward in this appalling situation, does my noble friend agree that it is terribly important to sponsor a sense of responsibility for an African issue within the African continent? Does she therefore agree that the wider forum of the United Nations has an important role to play in promoting a solution backed and supported by those nearer the crisis than we in Europe?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I fully recognise that but, as I hope my answer to the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, made clear, while we have tried to pursue this issue under the auspices of the United Nations with our European partners, as we did last year, we were not successful in doing so. One can go back over these issues, and one can perhaps readdress this issue in the United Nations in due course. I do not rule that out.
However, this is an urgent situation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has reminded us on a number of occasions. It simply is not good enough to say that we must rely on a mechanism that, sadly, transparently has not worked. We must look for some other solutions. We are doing that bilaterally, through what we are able to do from this country, and with our EU partners.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that while it is difficult to get accurate information from the region, the stories that are coming out are really quite horrific? There are stories of whole villages being massacred and of refugees fleeing into Chad being systematically bombed by the government forces. Has the Minister noticed that the often-vilified American Administration, led by Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, have taken enormous time and trouble—including personal intervention by Colin Powell—with the Sudanese authorities, both sides and all parties, in an attempt to halt this horrific massacre? Would she agree that in addition to whatever can be done by the UN or our partners in the EU, the support of our American allies and colleagues, who are doing so much in this area, should be one of our priorities in helping to get a better situation?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree that there are many well intentioned partners in trying to find some resolution to this issue. The noble Lord has rightly paid tribute to the role played by our American friends. We are also working very hard—as I have indicated to your Lordships, although not with any great detail—on what we are trying to do through the European Union. The fact is that, to some extent, I am unable to go into the full details of all the different ongoing discussions. I am advised that that would not be particularly helpful given the current state of negotiations. I hope that the noble Lord will understand why I say that.
If there is any light to be shed on the situation, perhaps I may make just one point. On 7 February, the Sudanese Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs issued a
926
statement asserting that safe corridors for the delivery of humanitarian assistance in Darfur have been opened. I hope that the fact that those safe corridors will be respected is at least a little good news and that humanitarian access will be a real priority to all those involved in this terrible conflict.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Newby set down for today shall be limited to two hours and that in the name of the Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer to two and a half hours.— (Baroness Amos.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Supreme Court
3.11 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a Statement on the proposed new United Kingdom Supreme Court.
On 14 July, we published for consultation our proposals to establish a Supreme Court for the United Kingdom. We published last week a summary of responses. Today, I am setting out our plans—a key element of our comprehensive programme of constitutional modernisation and reform, aimed at enhancing the credibility and effectiveness of public institutions and increasing trust and accountability.
Just as our proposals on the judicial functions of the office of Lord Chancellor rest on the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive, so too with our court system: we believe that the time has come to make a clear and transparent separation between the judiciary and the legislature. By creating a Supreme Court, we will separate fully the final court of appeal from Parliament.
Nothing in this proposal intends or implies any criticism of the way in which the current Appellate Committee or its members have discharged their functions. They are not in their places today. That is because they are at work hearing cases. But I have been asked to make it clear that no discourtesy is intended by their absence. Indeed, it is another manifestation of the singular consequences of situating our highest court within the legislature; although I see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, so I correct that in relation to him.
The Government's view is that, as part of our plans to sustain and enhance the vital independence of the judiciary, the present position is no longer sustainable. The time has come for the United Kingdom's highest court to move out from under the shadow of the legislature. I have been in close consultation with the

927
Law Lords since these proposals were announced. The Law Lords are aware of the detailed proposals that I am putting before the House today.
We will bring forward legislation to create a Supreme Court. Under our proposals the Supreme Court for the United Kingdom will replace the existing system whereby the Law Lords operate as a committee of this House. The Supreme Court will exercise the same appellate jurisdiction as the Appellate Committee presently exercises, in terms both of the courts from which appeals may lie and reviews by appellate petition. There will be no changes to the rules governing leave to appeal. The Supreme Court will also take over the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in respect of devolution issues under the Scotland Act 1998, the Government of Wales Act 1998 and the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
The creation of a separate and free-standing Supreme Court does not in any way imply the creation of a new body of United Kingdom law. Being the ultimate court of appeal in the UK does not mean that the court hears "UK appeals". As is presently the case with hearings in the Appellate Committee, decisions made in an appeal from a court in one of the three jurisdictions within the United Kingdom will be of binding effect only within that jurisdiction, and of persuasive effect in the others. Only on devolution issues, as at present, will the decisions of the court be binding in all legal proceedings. The avenues of appeals from Scottish Courts will remain the same for the Supreme Court as they were for the House of Lords, so that only Scottish civil appeals will be heard by the Supreme Court. The final court of appeal for criminal cases in Scotland will continue to be the High Court of Justiciary.
As the key objective is to achieve a full and transparent separation between the judiciary and the legislature, it follows that Justices of the Supreme Court, other holders of full-time judicial office, or retired justices of the Supreme Court who continue to sit, will no longer be entitled to sit or to vote in the House of Lords or to participate in the work of Parliament for as long as they hold their judicial appointment. The same will apply to the Lord Chief Justice, the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Master of the Rolls. I pay tribute to the valuable contribution to the work of this House that they and the Law Lords have made.
Judges of the new Supreme Court will be known as "Justices of the Supreme Court". We propose that the first 12 justices will be those holding office as Lords of Appeal in Ordinary at the commencement of the new Supreme Court. Two of these are from Scotland and one from Northern Ireland, so their appointment would ensure an appropriate balance of expertise across the United Kingdom at the creation of the new court as well as providing continuity. Qualifications for appointments will be unchanged.
Appointments will be made on the recommendation of a new Supreme Court Appointments Commission to be convened when there is an actual or impending
928
vacancy. The composition of the commission, consisting of members of the Appointments Commission from across the United Kingdom—with Members of Parliament and the Government ineligible for membership—guarantees nominations free from political influence. The president of the Supreme Court will chair the Appointments Commission, and the deputy president will also be an ex officio member. That will ensure a proper balance of lay and judicial input to its deliberations. The commission will consider candidates eligible for appointment by reference to criteria that have been approved by Parliament, subject to the overriding principle of merit. It will have a duty each time it meets to survey the field of all eligible candidates across the three jurisdictions and to focus on the most meritorious.
The commission will recommend to the Secretary of State a minimum of two and a maximum of five candidates for each vacancy. On receipt of the nominations, the Secretary of State will be under a statutory duty to ensure that the court has among its members sufficient knowledge and experience of the law in each United Kingdom jurisdiction. In doing so he will be required to consult the senior judiciary in the three jurisdictions. The Secretary of State will then submit a name from the shortlist to the Prime Minister, who will make a recommendation to Her Majesty accordingly. There will also be an obligation to canvass the views of the First Minister of Scotland, the First Minister of Wales, and the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland if responsibility for criminal justice matters has been devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
The requirement for a longer shortlist than is presented to the Secretary of State for vacancies for judicial offices in England and Wales derives from the UK-wide jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Justices of the Supreme Court must be the best available in the United Kingdom as a whole, but the court must always contain the necessary breadth of experience of each constituent jurisdiction. In order to balance those requirements it will be necessary for the Secretary of State to consult on a wider range of candidates. It is envisaged that there would never be fewer than two Scottish justices, and that there would normally be one justice from Northern Ireland.
The Supreme Court will be administered as a distinct constitutional entity. Special arrangements will apply to its budgetary and financial arrangements in order to reflect its unique status. It will present annual reports which will be made available not only to the Westminster Parliament, but also to the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the National Assembly for Wales. The chief executive, who will be appointed through a fair and open competition, will be responsible for accounting for the court's finances and will report on a day-to-day basis directly to the justices of the court. The court will have a staff of its own working to the chief executive.
The Supreme Court will stand at the apex of the judicial systems of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. As such, it is appropriate that it

929
should be based in London as the capital city of the United Kingdom. It may, however, on occasion be appropriate to hear cases in other parts of the United Kingdom, such as devolution cases, or cases raising issues specific to Scottish or Northern Ireland law. It would, however, be for the President of the Supreme Court to decide when it would be appropriate for it to sit elsewhere.
It is clearly important that the new Supreme Court should be housed in an appropriate building. I have therefore commissioned an extensive property search to identify suitable locations. The search has been based on a statement of requirements which has been discussed and agreed with the Law Lords and has considered a wide range of options, both commercial sites and those already on the government estate. An evaluation is currently being conducted to identify the preferred location. I will be seeking the views of the Law Lords, the First Ministers of the devolved administrations and the Lord President of the Council before any final decision is made. Until that process has been completed, it could be prejudicial to our commercial position to disclose details. I will, however, undertake to inform both Houses of the preferred option at an appropriate time.
There will be plenty of opportunity for debate on and scrutiny of the proposals I lay before the House today. I also look forward to receiving the report of the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee which will comment not only on the Supreme Court but also on the Judicial Appointments Commission for England and Wales. I believe that these proposals will result in a Supreme Court that will be, in the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn,
"a badge of independence and neutrality … a potent symbol of the allegiance of our country to the rule of law".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.20 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for letting me see an advance copy of his Statement. I believe that the noble and learned Lord extended the same courtesy to the noble Lord. Lord Goodhart.
As the noble and learned Lord is well aware, the Opposition believe that the real motive behind the Government's proposed Bill, of which today's Statement will form a part, is to weaken the judicial arm of the constitution.
The declared motive of the Government is that they seek to align our constitutional arrangements more intimately with the doctrine of the separation of powers. This motive has been frequently asserted but, in my submission, never properly argued. Moreover, there is no sign of compensating arrangements to be put in place to bolster the rule of law against the depredations of populist Ministers in the light of the imminent departure from the Cabinet of the Lord Chancellor and of the Lord Chief Justice from your Lordships' House.
I note from the Statement that the Law Lords are,
930
"aware of the detailed proposals I am putting before you".
I am sure that they are, but do all or at least a majority of them agree that these arrangements will deliver a higher degree of judicial independence than that enjoyed at the moment by the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House?
On 4 February the Times published an account of the Prime Minister's speech to the Commons Liaison Committee. In the course of that speech and in answering questions, the Times reported the Prime Minister to say:
"In retrospect, it would have been better probably had we published a paper, had we taken a step back and separated the reshuffle very clearly from departmental changes".
In my response to the Statement made the other day by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on the subject of judicial independence, I invited him to institute in your Lordships' House a pre-legislative review of the government Bill. That would give your Lordships an opportunity, on the basis of evidence, to compare these proposals with the existing situation. I asked, rhetorically, why that had not happened. Perhaps I may now answer that question by saying that I suspect it is because the Government fear that these proposals will not show up nearly as well as the effectiveness of our existing arrangements.
Before the Government embark on the enterprise of a separate Supreme Court, it is absolutely crucial that both they and we are clear that it will be of real benefit to the nation. I say that because it is going to cost an awful lot. If not only your Lordships but, even more importantly, the nation perceives that the cost is not worth it, what will be undermined will be the institution itself. We have a very good example of a similar process which has taken place to the north of here, in Edinburgh. So it is crucial that we know what we are to have for what we are to pay.
What are we to have? In his Statement, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that he had based his search for appropriate premises on a statement of requirements which has been discussed and agreed with the Law Lords—on the assumption, I suppose, that the Government will get their Bill. Is this another deal like the one struck in secret over judicial independence? If so, at least your Lordships had the benefit the other day of two very full papers from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and detailed comment in reply from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice.
I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord this: what are the details of the bargain struck with the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary? What accommodation has been agreed? Is it to form part of a plan for a new building? Or has a building for purchase been identified? Or is the noble and learned Lord minded to rent an appropriate building? What of the question of the scale, which must be intimately related to the assessment made by the Lord Chancellor and the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary about their accommodation needs—the administrative staff required, IT arrangements, additional legal staff and library facilities? All these ingredients will have been fed in to determine what will be the cost of the

931
accommodation. Since the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has already reached an agreement with the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, the noble and learned Lord must be in a position to tell us about the scale and the cost of the accommodation.
Finally, I turn to the proposals for a Supreme Court Law Commission to select new justices of the Supreme Court. The noble and learned Lord has said that the appropriate standard will be based wholly and solely on merit, which I welcome very much indeed. He has said that, invariably, a recommendation will be made to the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs of between two and five members. The noble and learned Lord has also informed us that the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs will select the final name to propose to the Prime Minister only after the senior judges in all the jurisdictions of the United Kingdom and the First Ministers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have been consulted.
While that is all well and good, what is to happen if, as a result of these conversations, irreconcilable differences emerge about who should be the proposed candidate? Although the noble and learned Lord did not say so, I assume that the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs must also make the final selection on merit, as must the Supreme Court Law Commission. I also understand that, in future, the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs is likely to be an elected politician, usually a non-lawyer, in another place. However, if the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs is under an obligation to select on merit one of the proposed five, what qualifications does he have to do so? Does this not mean that, in effect, the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs will have to be someone like the Lord Chancellor?
3.28 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, Members on these Benches support the creation of a Supreme Court separate from your Lordships' House and, indeed, we advocated that proposal long before the Government became converted to it. We disagree strongly with the view put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that the Government's aim is to weaken the role of the judiciary and the constitution. On the contrary, taken as a whole, the Government's reforms will substantially strengthen the role of the judiciary and therefore we welcome much of the Statement.
However, we have a number of questions and one issue that is causing serious concern. I shall start with the questions. Can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor confirm that retired Law Lords and retiring Supreme Court justices will be eligible to be called on to serve, if they wish to do so, as part-time members of the Supreme Court up to the age of 75, and will anyone else be able to sit as a part-time member?
We agree that serving members of the judiciary should not be Members of your Lordships' House. We recognise the valuable contributions made by many of them over the years, and notably in the past few weeks by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf. I notice that at least one serving Law Lord intends to speak in the debate on Thursday.
932
Continued membership of the legislature is not appropriate. We recognise that the corollary is the need to create new channels of communication between the judiciary and the legislature. We already have the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs in the House of Commons, but this is a time for some novel thinking. Should there be a Joint Committee of both Houses to deal specifically with the relationship between the judiciary and the legislature? Might one even consider going beyond membership of the two Houses and inviting senior members of the judiciary to become members of that same committee, so that they have full rights to speak?
We assume that Law Lords who were appointed before the Supreme Court came into existence will receive peerages and will be entitled to sit and vote in your Lordships' House on retirement, as will, of course, existing Law Lords when they retire. We believe that it is intended that Supreme Court justices, appointed after the Supreme Court comes into existence, will not have an automatic right to membership of your Lordships' House on retirement. if so, that is a matter on which we can agree. Will the noble and learned Lord say whether that is so? There is no reason why retired Supreme Court justices should not be eligible for appointment, as long as non-political appointments continue to be made to your Lordships' House.
We understand the reasons for not informing us of the progress in finding a home for the Supreme Court, but will the noble and learned Lord tell us what guarantees, if any, have been given by the Treasury for providing the funding? I am referring not just to one-off funding to buy premises, but to continuing funding for the running costs of staff, library, IT systems, and so on.
I turn now to an issue of concern with which, on this occasion, I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. I refer to the method of appointment of Supreme Court justices. We agree that there should be a Supreme Court appointments commission consisting of members of the Judicial Appointments Commission for England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Will the noble and learned Lord confirm that some appointees will be lay members?
It is proposed that the appointments commission should make recommendations to the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, who will then make recommendations to the Prime Minister. We believe that that would be wrong. The Department for Constitutional Affairs is basically a department for the legal system of England and Wales. It has a few wider functions tagged on, but they do not really belong there. We believe that recommendations should go straight from the appointments commission to the Prime Minister.
The Statement suggests that the appointments commission will recommend a minimum of two and a maximum of five candidates per vacancy. The idea of a list of five candidates is absurd. We believe that the system should follow the system already recommended for the appointment of judges in

933
England and Wales, which is that one name should be recommended by the appointments commission. The Prime Minister should have power to reject the nominee, or to ask for reconsideration, but only for reasons. If two names have to be submitted, it could lead to a situation in which, although the appointments commission believes that there is an outstanding candidate, that candidate may have made himself or herself unpopular with the Government. If another name has to be submitted as well, the Prime Minister can appoint the second name without giving reasons for rejecting the first. The reasons given in the Statement for requiring two names are unconvincing. The Statement says that,
"it will be necessary for the Secretary of State to consult on a wider range of candidates"—
because—
"the Court must always contain the necessary breadth of experience of each constituent jurisdiction".
That is surely what the appointments commission is for. Why should the Secretary of State need to carry out further consultations? Unless there are real grounds for rejecting a nominee, we believe that the Prime Minster should be required to accept the nominations from the appointments commission.
The Statement leaves a lot of detail to be filled in. It is much less full than the Statement we had two weeks ago on the appointment of judges in England and Wales. We have serious concerns about the appointments system for the justices, and a number of details need to be filled in. We shall reserve judgment on the Supreme Court until we see the Bill.
3.35 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for his welcome in principle to the Statement. I fully accept that there are details to be filled in, but I shall deal first with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland.
He said that it was a scheme intended to undermine the independence of the judiciary. He is the only one who has made such a suggestion, and it is completely wrong. The proposal to create the Supreme Court is a view shared by the current senior Law Lord and a number of other Law Lords. The senior Law Lord said that it was the mark of an independent, liberal democracy to have a Supreme Court separate from Parliament. That shows that it is a sensible proposal.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I want to make it clear that I did not say that the scheme undermines the independence of the judiciary, but that it undermines the strength of the judiciary as an arm of the constitution in this country. That is a quite different point from the point about independence.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a slightly subtle point. Putting the final court of appeal into a separate organisation in which it has control over its own budget could not possibly
934
undermine the judiciary as an independent arm of the state. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I do not think that there is much in that point.
With regard to the agreement of the Law Lords, it is well known that Law Lords have different views about the right course to take, which is exactly what one would expect from an independent group of people.
On the issue of accommodation, there is certainly no deal or arrangement with the Law Lords. They have made clear the sort of accommodation they are looking for, and we are seeking accommodation on that basis. To deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, the right course will be to publish an outline of the accommodation required, rather than for me to go through it today.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, asked about retirement ages. The normal retirement age for future justices will be 70, but they can continue up until 75. On the question of who else can sit in the Supreme Court, there will be those who are retired, but who are still under 75 and wish to do so. In exceptional circumstances, particularly in relation to devolution issues, the president can invite members of the Courts of Appeal of the three jurisdictions to sit. But that would be in exceptional circumstances on issues particularly focused on devolution. Such justices would not be full members of the Supreme Court.
The noble Lord raised the question of new channels of communication between Parliament and the Supreme Court. Again, that is very much a matter for Parliament to develop. We would not wish to stand in the way, but it is for both Houses to discuss those issues. On the matter of guarantees from the Treasury, I should be glad if the noble Lord could introduce me to any Minister who has a guarantee of funding from the Treasury in perpetuity. I cannot give the noble Lord such an assurance on guarantees.
On the method of appointments, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, raised the question of someone who is not a lawyer making the choice. Until now that problem has been wrestled with by Prime Ministers of the day. The noble Lord knows that Prime Ministers make recommendations to Her Majesty, albeit on the advice of the Lord Chancellor. Although the current Prime Minister is a lawyer, the noble Lord may find it hard to believe that there have been previous Prime Ministers who were not lawyers.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, referred to merit. Plainly such issues exist, but there are also issues about geographical balance that must be addressed in appointing members of the Supreme Court. I said that we would expect there to be two Scots and one person from Northern Ireland. It is a matter, rightly, for the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, whose responsibilities are not just for England and Wales but cover the whole country. Our proposal reflects the need for merit to be the underlying purpose, but allows for a judgment to be made about the balance throughout the kingdom.
3.40 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, it is apparent from the noble and learned Lord's Statement that he bases much of his approach on the principle of the separation of powers between the judiciary, the legislature and the executive. That theory, it will be found from study, derives from the works of the French jurist, Montesquieu, who in the 18th century wrote a classic work, De lesprit des lois, which was based to a large extent on a study of the workings of the British constitution. He thought that in the workings of our 18th-century constitution, which he much admired, he perceived that separation of powers. However, students since that time have tended to doubt the theory. Rather, they believe that our constitution has worked at its best—it did not always work very well in the 18th century—because of the respect shown by one power to the other. As an undergraduate at Oxford 50 years ago, I remember reading a study to that effect in the classic work by HAL Fisher, A History of Europe, in which that very thought is expressed.
I further suggest that that other great democracy, the United States, does not adopt that approach either. The President of the United States appoints the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, or at least suggests his name. I therefore believe that the historical basis for the separation of powers deserves a little more examination before we accept it at its face value.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the approach that we are taking is based in large measure on the separation of powers, but it is also a practical approach. As time has gone on, it has seemed wrong that in order to be appointed to the final Court of Appeal in this country one has to be appointed as a Member of the second Chamber. That there have been increasing difficulties in that respect can be seen from the approach of the Law Lords themselves, who a few years ago, through their senior Law Lord, issued a statement with regard to when they would think it appropriate to participate in the proceedings of the legislative House. That was a recognition on their part that what had gone before needed modification. I believe that a clear separation between the role of the final Court of Appeal and the second Chamber of legislature would be a further sensible step down that road. It would make it much clearer and much easier for those who will sit in that final Court of Appeal.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said—I hope I quote him correctly— that it is important that the final Court of Appeal in this country should move out from under the shadow of the legislature. That phrase also appeared in the consultation document last July. I am surprised that it should be repeated orally today. I have never thought that the Law Lords, acting in their judicial capacity, operate under the shadow of the legislature or indeed under the shadow of anyone. They have maintained their independence, which has been recognised by others, including the House of Lords sitting in its legislative capacity. Therefore, the
936
phrase is quite inappropriate. We know that the Supreme Court will be independent. There seems to be—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bridges—a much greater theoretical than a pragmatic basis for Her Majesty's Government's proposals. One practical consequence of that is that we shall lose out as a legislature if and when the sitting Law Lords are no longer allowed to sit. It will mean that representations by, say, the Lord Chief Justice on a criminal justice Bill, or speeches by others in debate, will be lost to us.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred to the statement in 2000 by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, to the effect that, as a self-denying ordinance, the judges would not speak on politically controversial matters or matters in which they may be involved in judicial proceedings. Is the noble and learned Lord saying that he is dissatisfied with that statement and its results? The statement seems to me to solve the problem, if there is any practical problem, of a number of judges who sit in the House of Lords in its legislative capacity choosing to speak and others choosing not to speak while they are still sitting as judges.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, first, I thoroughly agree with the noble Lord's remarks about the shadow of the legislature. I hope that nothing that I have said could remotely be taken as indicating that I think the Law Lords are not completely independent and do not deliver a quality of judgment that is second to none throughout the world. I hope that I did not imply anything to that effect. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that they are completely independent. However, the phrase is intended to convey the sense that the final Court of Appeal should be identifiably separate from the legislature, so that what it does can be clearly seen to be separate from what the legislature does.
Secondly, with regard to the question of whether I am dissatisfied with the consequences of the statement of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, in relation to the circumstances in which the Law Lords would speak, I am not dissatisfied at all. However, it is surely an indication that as time goes by there needs to be a separation. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, tells the story of his making a statement in the House of Lords about a particular criminal justice Bill, which he broadly welcomed, and making a number of remarks indicating that he had some reservations about it, after which he was unable to hear a number of cases because of his comments.
There needs to be greater clarity. The statement that the noble and learned Lord made in February recognised that further steps need to be taken, and that is what we are doing.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, is it perhaps not the case that the form of the answer has been somewhat determined by the form of the question that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has addressed? If the question is how we can visibly secure the independence of the judiciary, then an

937
answer similar to his seems to follow. If the question is how all the parts of our society and our authority structure work together for the securing of justice for all our people, a different set of problems may arise, therefore resulting in different answers.
The traditions that I have observed since coming to the House have come to mean rather more to me than when I perhaps did not understand them as well. The constitutional arrangements of this country bear witness to the notion that the word "supreme" is properly applied to a judge who stands judge over all things; that also is witness to how we begin our proceedings in the House when it sits judicially. It may be judged that we live in a secular society in which those signs of the coherence of our society are no longer relevant and that we need others. However, I have some reservations about the wholesale importing of the kind of post-enlightenment reasoning that led to the American constitution—a constitution that I greatly admire, but which, of course, means that the United States Supreme Court is never really supreme.
In a country that does not have that, a country that is surrendering the religious dimension of the way in which it expresses its coherence, I wonder whether we are going down a track without fully understanding where we are heading. Therefore, although I greatly respect the noble and learned Lord's answer to his question, I want to express to him that for some of us there may be questions of a rather fundamental kind about the coherence of our society, which his proposals do not answer.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we would put the question in the second way: we will look at the whole of our institutions and formulate the best way forward. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for formulating it in that way because only then can we arrive at an answer that will benefit the whole of the nation rather than only one part of it.
Looking at the matter simply from the point of view of this Chamber, one might come up with a different answer than by looking at it right across the board—for example, by looking at the way in which the justice system operates and the way in which litigants perceive the system to work. How do they feel when they come to the legislature and hear, for example, a point being made about the fact that you cannot look at debates in the House of Lords, and then see that two or three members of the Appellate Committee have participated in a debate in which they are not allowed to play any part? How do they see the distinction between the two being drawn?
So I fully accept the second formulation, not the first. I suggest, with diffidence, that that is the way in which we have looked at the matter.
As to the American model, we are most strenuously not going down that route. The final court of appeal, which will sit separately from the legislature, will not be a supreme court of appeal such as the one in the United States of America, which has the power to strike down legislation because there is a written
938
constitution that is superior to it. We are not going down that route. We are allowing a system to be developed where the way in which the courts operate and the way in which the legislature operates will be much clearer to the public.
Lord Elton: My Lords, your Lordships have concentrated mostly on the effect that the proposed change will have on the strength of the judiciary. I hope noble Lords will not lose sight of the effect that it will have on this House. First, one of only two voices that we can count on in Cabinet as ours will be lost when the post of Lord Chancellor is abolished; and, secondly, the assured stream of incoming judicial wisdom that we have always had will dry up.
As a Home Office Minister I remember clearly the effective contributions made during the discussions on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill 1984 by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and the powerful interventions made on many occasions through my tenure of office by the late lamented Lord Denning. Your Lordships have placed great weight on contributions made by such noble and learned Lords as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in his report on the Prison Service. From whence will this wisdom and experience be replaced? Is it not odd for a legislative body, in effect, to silence all contributions of people who will have to implement the legislation it makes?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as to the noble Lord's first point, of course we must look at the matter, as the right reverend Prelate said, not by reference only to the justice system but right across the board in relation to how all our institutions operate. With respect, we believe that that is how we have looked at it.
What will strengthen the independence of the judiciary most is the acknowledgement that the Lord Chief Justice is, in truth, the head of the judiciary—which will be the effect of the abolition of the post of Lord Chancellor—rather than leaving the Lord Chancellor as the effective head of the judiciary sitting at the Cabinet table. We believe that a clear acknowledgement that the head of the judiciary is a sitting serving judge, who has worked in the judiciary over a long period of time, will be a much greater protection than simply having a politician appointed as head of the judiciary.
As to the noble Lord's second point, as has been made clear, once judges have ceased to sit as a justice of the Supreme Court they will be eligible to come into the House. They will not be eligible while sitting as a current member of the Supreme Court.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in that case, can the noble and learned Lord elaborate on his reply to the noble Lord—
Noble Lords: No.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord comment further on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges—clearly I speak as a non-lawyer—and the point made by the right reverend Prelate about the United States? Is it not very important that the separation of powers is not seen as a shibboleth because people might then say that, on the Florida chads issue in the United States, the Supreme Court voted more or less five Republicans to four Democrats, or whatever the ratio may have been? Is it not important to show that the separation of powers is not going down that road precisely because there are great strengths in the current system and we do not need to have anything like the American model?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I repeat what I said in answer to both the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and the right reverend Prelate: no one envisages or suggests that the Supreme Court which will emerge out of these proposals will be anything other than a court completely independent of politicians. It will be a court that is completely independent of the legislature. Without any real doubt about its independence, it will be able to determine important issues of law and any important devolution issues that need to be resolved.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, given the great value in times of national emergency that the presence, for the time being, of the Lord Chancellor in the Cabinet has had, and given the value at similar times of the ability of this House to hear speeches from Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, but at the same time given the importance which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has emphasised of the true separation of powers, does he envisage including in any Bill arrangements whereby the Government and/or Parliament may be able to seek the advice of the Supreme Court rather than awaiting an adversarial hearing brought by a party? A capacity to seek the advice of the Supreme Court would be of great value to this House, at any rate, at times of great national need.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to the role of the Lord Chancellor in times of great emergency. He will know that, during the Second World War, Winston Churchill removed the Lord Chancellor from the Cabinet—who then, for the first time, sat outside the Cabinet. I mention that in parentheses.
As to whether we envisage the Supreme Court having the power to give advisory opinions, no, we do not. Our legal system has never operated on the basis that hypothetical questions are put to courts. We should not see the courts as having an advisory function; they are bodies which resolve disputes between people. When the Law Lords have spoken here—whether they are retired or sitting as Law Lords—they have expressed individual opinions but they have not been authoritative. Nor do I believe it would be a particularly good idea for the Government to be able to refer issues to the courts for advisory opinions.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the Statement. Does he recognise the following quotation:
"The British judiciary have been independent for centuries, and never more so than today. The United Kingdom is in full compliance with the Committee of Ministers' Recommendation of 1994 to Member States on the Independence, Efficiency and Role of Judges"?
Let me help him. That is a quotation from a note by the Lord Chancellor's Department dated November 2002. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can explain what has changed so abruptly that we must now go down this path.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not believe that anyone has at any stage suggested that under the current system our judges are not fully independent. I do not believe that anyone has convincingly suggested that we are in breach of any convention that requires change. We have not sought to justify the changes we have made on the basis that the judges are not independent at the moment, nor that we are or might be in breach of any international obligation.
We have sought to justify the changes on the basis that they make for more sustainable long-term independence. And also, looking at the right reverend Prelate's proposals, they make for the whole constitution to work better.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as I understand it, when the Scotland Act passed through the House the decision that devolution matters should go to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was quite deliberate because it would allow, on occasion, for distinguished New Zealand and Australian judges, or others who are Privy Counsellors, to join in the deliberations on such matters. If I understand correctly what is outlined in the Statement, we shall be deprived of that opportunity to take advantage of their legal skills.
Having served for some years, I have recently been removed from Sub-Committee E of the European Union Select Committee, on which the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, served. That Sub-Committee has been successively chaired by Law Lords—in my time by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope and Lord Scott, both of whom are extremely distinguished judges. In the context of Europe, the authority of having a Law Lord presiding over that committee gave us a standing in Europe that I honestly believe was not shared by any other country in the European Union. I urge the noble and learned Lord to understand the authority that that gave not only that committee but this House as a whole.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, in relation to the noble and learned Lord's first point, devolution issues were given to the Privy Council partly because people other than serving Law Lords could sit on it, especially those from Scotland or Northern Ireland— although New Zealand and other countries could also have been included. Also, perhaps more decisively, it

941
was thought to be inappropriate for the Westminster Parliament to have a committee of its own to decide issues that might well be between the Westminster Parliament and one of the devolved bodies. Plainly, once the Supreme Court is set up, there will no longer be a Westminster Parliament committee resolving disputes between the Westminster Parliament and the devolved bodies.
I could not agree more with the noble and learned Lord's second point about the distinguished chairmanship by existing Law Lords of Sub-Committee E. Everyone speaks extraordinarily highly of the way in which it is chaired. However, I do not believe that, with all the talent in this House, one could not find people to chair the committee very effectively. The noble and learned Lord will know that until some time in the 19th century, the House of Commons always asked High Court judges to chair their Select Committees. I do not believe that that was a justification for having High Court judges in the House of Commons.

Local Income Tax
4.1 p.m.
Lord Newby Lord Newby rose to call attention to the case for replacing council tax with local income tax; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this afternoon we are raising the case for local income tax, because of the importance and urgency of the need to reform local government finance, and, in particular, of the need to replace the failing council tax.
We start from the premise that decisions by government should be made as close to the people as possible. We believe that local decisions are most likely to reflect local circumstances and that decisions taken that are removed from those who are affected by them or have to be implemented by them are, in many cases, likely to be ineffective or inefficient.
This approach has been vindicated by the failure of many of the Government's centrally set targets—ailure now opena fly accepted both by the Cabinet Secretary and in the Prime Minister's new found enthusiasm for localism. However, if more decisions are to be made at local level, it is both logical and necessary that the funding to implement them should also be raised to the maximum possible extent at local level. That used to happen, but it is certainly not the case today. At present, about 75 percent of the revenue of local councils comes from national government. A mere 25 per cent is raised and set locally. To make matters worse, the sole significant source of locally raised revenue is generated by the council tax; a tax introduced in panic by a Conservative government to rescue themselves from the greatest failure in taxation in our lifetimes—the poll tax. Council tax itself is now failing.
Council tax is failing partly because it is expected to bear too great a burden, but also because it is a thoroughly unfair tax. Paradoxically, it has to bear too
942
great a burden because it represents such a small proportion of total council spending—for every 1 per cent of expenditure increase by a local council, council tax has to rise by 4 per cent—and, because it is a stagnant rather than a buoyant tax, it has to be changed annually to secure additional council income. That inevitably means that, for some councils in some years, council tax has to rise by a very large percentage to deal with a relatively low percentage increase in local spending. In years such as this one, most local councils budget for increases several times that of inflation to meet modest additional expenditure needs. Indeed, for 2003–04, the average increase has been 13 per cent throughout the country and, on average, in double figures, irrespective of which party controls the council. Indeed, at 16 per cent, Conservative councils have had the highest average rise compared with Labour councils at just under 11 per cent and Liberal Democrat councils at just over 10 per cent. In total, since Labour came to power in 1997, council tax bills have gone up 70 per cent.
for the forthcoming year, a survey published last week by the Local Government Chronicle, suggests that three quarters of unitary authorities and 70 per cent of county councils plan to increase council tax by more than 5 per cent. The response of the Government, like their Conservative predecessors, is one of outrage: "How dare these insolent councils propose increases which go beyond the arbitrary 5 per cent ceiling on tax increases that the Government have set?".
Also like their Conservative predecessors, their response is to threaten to cap such increases. Nick Raynsford sent out 56 letters to local councils last week saying that they must moderate their council tax increases or they would be capped. In some cases—Islington, for example—those letters went to councils that were planning to increase council tax by less than 7 per cent, which represents an expenditure increase of less than 2 per cent, which is hardly profligacy.
This year, the situation is exacerbated for many councils in the midlands and the south because the funding formula has changed. They do less well than before, but they are still expected to meet the same nationally set standards in social services and education, for example. That has led to many proposed double-digit council tax rises, and the threat of legal action against the Government. The council in south Gloucester, for example, proposes to initiate a judicial review of any capping decision against it on the basis that it is having to propose a high council tax increase only because of changes in the funding formula, not because of major changes in overall expenditure levels.
Council tax is creaking at the seams to generate the income that local councils need. However, it is fatally wounded because its unfairnesses have led to a collapse in its credibility amongst taxpayers the length and breadth of the country. Council tax is unfair because it is completely unrelated to income. It operates under a banding system that puts a ceiling on what the richest pay and a floor under what the

943
poorest pay. As a result, the poorest 10 per cent pay over four times more of their income in council tax than the richest 10 per cent.
The poorest 20 per cent of pensioners pay nearly six times more as a proportion of their income than the richest 20 per cent of non-pensioners. In a year when state pensions rose by 2.6 per cent and council tax by 13 per cent, it is hardly surprising that pensioners have become the most vociferous opponents of council tax.
In order to mitigate the unfairness of the tax, we have a system of council tax credits for poorer households. However, some 2 million eligible households do not claim it, so many of the poorest end up still paying the tax. Liberal Democrats would scrap council tax and reinvigorate local government by introducing a local income tax as the principal means by which local people pay for local services. We would do so for several reasons. A local income tax is fair. It is quite simply related to ability to pay. It is also cheaper to administer and needs no special bureaucracy or benefits system. The council tax in the current year will cost some £569 million to administer. In comparison, a local income tax would save at least £300 million of that.
Local income tax is buoyant. Unlike council tax, revenue would rise automatically as the local economy grew. Local income tax helps decentralisation. Over time, it would allow national income tax to be cut, with tax power pushed down to local council level. Local income tax is also more accountable. As a general principle, raising tax close to people makes it easier for them to see how their taxes are spent. More people would pay local income tax than council tax, so more people would be aware of the cost of their councils. Finally, local income tax is tried and tested. It successfully operates across the developed world from America to Sweden to Japan.
How would our plans for local income tax work? That tax would work very much like national income tax. Local councils would set a rate for local income tax and that would be added to the national income tax rate. At the same time, council tax would be abolished, so the total tax burden across the population as a whole would be unaffected. It would be administered through the existing Inland Revenue PAYE system, so people need not fear that officials in their local town hall would know their earnings.
People would have the same tax-free allowances as they do for national income tax. They would then all pay the local income tax rate on all their incomes up to a limit of £100,000. We have set a cap of £100,000 on local income tax for two reasons. First, because we would also introduce a new 50 per cent tax rate on incomes above £100,000 and we wish to guarantee to high income earners that 50 per cent would be the maximum combined tax rate that they face. We also believe that without such a cap there could be too great an incentive for the highest earners to move from high tax authorities to low ones. That is a distortion we are keen to minimise.
Our system would produce a national average rate of local income tax of 3.75 per cent. We have calculated this using CIPFA figures and by assigning
944
to local government some £1.7 billion from the tax take for those who pay 50 per cent on their earnings over £100,000. I would be delighted to send any noble Lord who is interested in the details a full breakdown of our costing.
The tax could be administered by the Revenue in broadly two ways, both of which would use the PAYE system. In the first, one would link different local income tax rates to tax codes; in the other, one would abolish the existing codes in favour of an end-of-year reconciliation process. Both are technically capable of producing the right answer, and we would consult taxpayers, employers and other stakeholders before deciding which of the two options to adopt.
It is inevitable that the scrapping of one tax and its replacement by another will lead to gainers and losers. How does local income tax fare? We estimate that approximately 70 per cent of households would be better off or unaffected by the switch to local income tax. Those who will be better off will be the less well-off households now. For example, for a household on median income, and currently living in an average band D council-tax property, local income tax would save them some £460 per year. An equivalent pensioner couple on an income of just over £14,000 would save £1,080. Losers would be high income earners and some dual or multiple income earning households, but this is inevitable if one replaces an unfair, regressive tax with a fairer, progressive one.
The Government have belatedly accepted that local government finance is in a mess and last summer established the Balance of Funding Review to examine the problem. The only suggestion that appears to be receiving much support is some form of fairer" council tax, whatever that might mean. Indeed, in answer to a question from me last week, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was unusually Delphic in saying whether the Government were considering local income tax as one of their options under the Balance of Funding Review. Weekend press reports said that the Government have ruled out both local income tax and relocalisation of the business rates—another change incidentally which is long overdue from the review. I would be grateful if the Minister could lift the veil a little on government thinking in this area.
As for the Conservatives, Oliver Letwin, in an interview with the Independent on 10 December last year, indicated that he wanted to raise the share of council budgets raised locally from 25 to 50 per cent— a laudable aim—but he wanted to retain the council tax. The implication of this was that council taxes might have to double. This seems such an implausible proposal that I cannot really believe that it represents Conservative Party thinking. Perhaps the noble Lord the Conservative spokesman could be a bit more explicit today.
Given the problems facing council tax, it is hardly surprising that, outside Parliament, the interest in and support for local income tax is growing. For example, in its response to the Balance of Funding Review, the Local Government Association argued that moving towards local income tax should be considered as a

945
major new contributor to local government income. Opinion in the country is also showing a strong and increasing level of support for local income tax.
Local government funding is in a crisis. Council tax simply cannot bear the demands being placed on it. A local income tax would be fairer, easier to collect and more transparent than council tax. It is a buoyant source of funds. For these reasons it is commonly applied across the world. It is time that it was introduced here.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I appreciate that the case is made and the Motion is in favour of a local income tax rather than a case against, but he rushed rather briefly over the case against. Would he not accept that the issue is rather more complex; that by transferring it all to pay-as-you-earn it will be seen in due course more as a central government tax than a local tax?
Lord Newby: My Lords, I would have been delighted to have spoken for half an hour on the subject and would have happily dealt with the noble Lord's question at some greater length. My noble friend will deal with that in her summing up.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I, too, have a short point before the noble Lord sits down. He indicated that the tax would be capped at £100,000. He expected the average rate to be 3.75 per cent, but he indicated that there would be variable rates. Does he have a proposal for limits to either the bands or the rates that local authorities will be allowed to charge?
Lord Newby: My Lords, I think the whole question of the detailed administration of the tax is one that we would need to put out to consultation. There are a number of options for limiting bands, but the principle under which we are operating is to give greater control to local councils and local communities to set rates of taxation which meet local need. We want to get away from prescriptive, central government controls on locally raised taxes as far as we can. I beg to move for Papers.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I remind noble Lords that this is a timed debate and that we are now into the 17th minute of the 15 minutes that were allowed for the noble Lord, Lord Newby. In drawing the House's attention to that I cast no blame on the noble Lord, Lord Newby, for what has happened.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, for raising this very interesting topic. Indeed, the interventions of the noble Lords, Lord Barnett and Lord Marlesford, reinforce the point that I want to make, which is that the topic of local income tax will arouse interest and controversy. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, because he makes me feel young again. In the 1960s and 1970s
946
we were endlessly discussing local income tax; it is a topic that needs serious non-partisan consideration, which is what I shall give it.
I want to emphasise several general problems. The successive property taxes that we have had in this country—rate support grant and council tax—failed because they were very badly implemented. If there were a continuous if not a quinquennial upgrading of property values and if the tax were to fall on property values, then it would be a much fairer system to tax wealth than tax income. Notions of progressivity which rely only on income—and on earned income at that—have a problem; earned income does not represent spending power and we would get lots of anomalies, as we did on the poll tax.
I remember taking part in a debate in 1975 on the rate support grant. I am always astonished that the British middle classes celebrate increasing property prices. Newspapers tell us daily how high house prices are rising. But people complain bitterly as soon as there is the slightest suggestion of increasing taxes. People say, "How can you tax our wealth? Our wealth is illiquid". The fact that their wealth is illiquid is not a sufficient reason for leaving it untaxed. My first priority would be to have a much better and much more efficient system of revaluing property so that the property taxation rate did not increase steeply but the valuation of property kept in line with trends of property supply and demand. As property is the most local of assets, fairly taxing local property values would provide a better outcome than would taxing income. I shall discuss income tax in a moment.
The Conservative Party's panic in the 1980s about rate support grant was due partly to a total failure to understand what the rate support grant was about. I was on the Opposition Benches at the time and was trying to give a little lecture to Ministers on how the rateable value was the notional income that a property owner could earn from his property. Ministers looked at me like they had never in their lives even heard of the idea. They thought that the rates had been pulled from thin air. At that time, first in Scotland and then in England, the Conservative Party failed to grasp the nettle of revaluing properties. After a very substantial increase in property values, they lost their nerve. For political reasons, they grasped at the strange idea of the poll tax—the community charge, if anyone remembers it.
Tony Travers, Andrew Adonis and a third author whose name I forget wrote an excellent book on the poll tax. The poll tax was astonishing because although the policy had been devised by the finest minds in the Conservative think tanks and the Civil Service and backed by the then Cabinet with the exception of the Chancellor, they got it completely wrong. So forethought does not always guarantee good policy.
If we cannot continuously revalue property on the basis of inflation, as the Bank of England has done—and we have the tools to do it—and if we cannot find a better system of wealth taxation, then local income tax may be the second best option. I am leaving aside issues such as the taxation of business income.

947
In the British constitution there is a great problem of diversity and local control. We want very much to have diversity in everything except expenditure standards. We impose national standards. We are obsessed with uniformity. As I have said before in other contexts, we believe that uniformity is equality. That fallacy haunts British politics, in top-up fees and elsewhere. I do not know why we cannot allow diversity of provision. Why cannot we allow local authorities to decide not to spend more money on secondary schools but on something else? By not allowing diversity in expenditure, we impose certain rigidities on local authorities in terms of how much they are obliged to spend. Whatever means of local taxation are allowed, when there is a contribution from the central authorities, there will be the problem of leverage outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Newby. As long as local income tax is a small proportion of total revenue, there will be leverage whereby 1 percent extra spending will entail a multiple percentage point increase in the local tax.
The noble Lord's party serves a very useful function by never coming to power but having good ideas. However, I think that it should think further about this idea. It should consider the problem of how to allow for diversity in expenditure without harming minimal standards.
I worry that the notion of income implicit in proposals for a local income tax attaches not to where income is produced or earned but where it is spent—that is, the local authority in which the income earner resides. One problem in this respect is that commuter towns will always do better than areas distant from the more prosperous commercial areas. Another problem which has always haunted British local finance is the inequality of revenue between local authorities. While it is true that equity between high earners and low earners across the country would be better served by replacing council tax with local income tax, we would still be left with the problem of the existence of poor local authorities and rich local authorities. Therefore, it would still be necessary for central government to intervene and contribute a large part of the total revenue of poor local authorities.
I do not say that as a criticism. We live in an unequal world and inequalities are bound to exist. The problem is how we overcome these inequalities and compensate poorer communities. It may sound heartless, but I think that we can do that in two ways. First, we can maintain the current central government dispensation. However, I think that that has grown beyond belief; it is much too large a proportion of local revenue. Secondly, I return to the idea that we allow for diversity of provision. In a very cruel way, that means that poor local authorities get poor services. Services will not be as poor as their income levels are low, but they will have to make decisions.
Ultimately, people can move. I do not believe that people have to stay where they are born. Our principles of local finance are based on the superstition that those who are born in a region should stay there. I think that we ought to encourage mobility. We ought to say, "If you choose to live in an area—perhaps a rural area or
948
a poor area—tough luck. If you do not like it, move. Or live there. If you are rooted to the soil and enjoy the local rainfall or football team, you have to pay the price. You are grown up people, you pay the price". Uniformity and the idea that no one should have to move and that people should be compensated for not moving are not a good basis for local finance.
I think that we need tough love. Tough love says, "Yes, there will be diversity in expenditure". To the extent that wealth taxation is not feasible because the great British middle classes will not tolerate it and no political party has the guts to impose it, it appears that we will have to resort to local income tax. The noble Lord's proposal has one merit—with which there is also a problem, as my noble friend pointed out-which is that it will have to be centrally administered. As it will be centrally administered, it will be thought to be a central tax. That can be avoided only by allowing such wide variation in the local tax that it is seen as local.
I would therefore urge one proposal. As the Liberal Democrats will never come to power anyway they may as well try this out. I would allow a much wider range than 10 per cent in the local income tax and then wait to see what happened. If people want to live in areas liable to high local taxation that is their problem. If they do not like it they can move out. I believe that the way to make local income tax work would be by allowing much greater variability so that it stands out as a local income tax and is not subsumed under national taxation. I do not like the kindness shown to people who make more than 100,000. I do not see why one should be kind to them, or why we are so delicate about the rich. If people earn more than £100,000 they should pay whatever surcharge the party of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, wishes to impose on them when it comes to power, as well as local income tax. I thank the noble Lord for his thoughtful comments and for the fine way in which he initiated the debate.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I find this a rather depressing subject for a debate and a little dishonest too. It does not address the problem at all, but puts up the glittering prize of local income tax—which I agree has plenty of superficial appeal—with the dishonesty of never going into the detail of the effects it would have locally.
For instance, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said that it would be 3 per cent on average. Yes; but down in the south-west it would be 7 per cent because it is an income-poor area with high property prices. If we replaced the current system with a local income tax it would therefore bear heavily on counties in the south-west.
There are many details that would make the idea of a local income tax extremely difficult to put into practice. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, mentioned several; including the fact that so many of us travel to work. Where does this income tax belong: to the city centre, where so many of us go to work and where many of the problems and needs are; or to the leafy

949
suburbs where we all go home to sleep? Does it belong to Wandsworth where I lay my head, Westminster where I do my work, or Hampshire, which is my main residence?
As soon as we begin to go into the questions of what it would look like in practice, how it would work and what the flows of taxation, benefit and disbenefit would be, we find ourselves defeated. All sorts of governments over the past 30 or more years have considered local income tax. They have done their best to go down that road, because all of them have seen difficulties with the system we have, but all of them have universally rejected local income tax.
I am absolutely certain in my heart that should there ever be a Liberal Democrat government they would reject it too, because they are not daft people; they just feel free to have a complete dissonance between what they say and what they really believe. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, opened his speech by saying that decisions by government should be made as close to the people as possible; that is fascinating considering that the other day the Liberal Democrats proposed, through an amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that any significant planning decision should effectively be appealed automatically to the Secretary of State, taking all significant planning powers away from local authorities.
There is no consistency there and none of the hard-headed realism with which those parties who find themselves in government have to contend, leaving imagination to their Back Benches. The Front Benches have to be serious and sensible, which makes for a core of sensible decisions and policies.
Apart from that issue, I found myself agreeing a great deal with the analysis presented by the noble Lord, Lord Newby. We are in an untenable position. We have seen in the course of this Government's period of office council tax being used as another of Gordon Brown's stealth taxes. It has increased, as the noble Lord said, by 70 per cent at a time when income tax by and large has not. It has been pushed to the point where it is causing pain in some wholly inappropriate corners of the economy. As he also said, letters have gone out to all sorts of councils saying that they cannot raise their council tax by more than 5 per cent. Two days later, a message comes that says, "Oh, by the way, it's all right; we're finding a way of fudging the figures so that you can raise it by 7 per cent". It is not real. Departments are not realising what is happening when we get down to the details of a single local authority's finance.
The Department for Education and Skills has passported its increase in education expenditure on all councils, which means that some councils are finding that 100 per cent of their increase in income this year has to go to schools. Where is the money to come from for all the new things that are supposed to happen? Other government departments have let that happen, because they think centrally and they do not realise how it spins out to the individual local authorities.
950
Looking back over our years in power, it is one of my sadnesses that we did so badly by local government. We did not respect, promote or protect it. We did some daft things, such as the poll tax. I do not look back on that with any pride. The current Government have not faced up to any of the problems and they have made matters much worse by using council tax as a central government tax and by the changes in the support grant regime, which have been deliberately designed to move money from rural to urban authorities and from the south to the north. That has caused extreme difficulties for pensioners in the south, as is well known.
It is not an open system; we cannot penetrate the mathematics by which things are done. The end result is there, but we cannot see the process. Central decisions are taken in a dark and smoky way and the results and the pain are felt locally. I am in the happy position of not knowing what our policy is; it is of course possible that we do not have a policy, but I shall be enlightened later on. I am therefore in a position to speculate. I would like to see us make an honest appraisal of all that has happened over the past 25 years. As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said, we have become very dirigiste in what we demand of the way in which money is spent locally.
Let us be honest and say that that is now central government expenditure. Let us set a national funding formula for schools centrally and let that money be provided centrally. Let us accept that a plethora of social services have become part of the National Health Service. Let us get rid of the artificial distinction that we spent so much time debating during the previous Session on the strange Bill that allows the health service to fine local authorities for not removing people from hospitals. Let us recognise that the health service now extends into the community and that all those services are really part of the National Health Service and should be administered as such.
Let us remove from local authorities all the expenditure and functions that are essentially mandated centrally, and let us give local authorities—as is beginning to happen in a small way in the National Health Service—a function of scrutiny where they take the part of the local community in assessing how national quangos or structures are doing in providing services locally. Then we will have a local authority that is facing towards its customers. It will be possible to have a child with special educational needs and go to the local authority and expect to be welcomed and helped, rather than meeting the reaction, "Oh goodness, here comes another bill; hide under the table and go away for two years".
We would have local authorities that were interested in being responsive to their citizens because that is what they would be responsible for doing. At the same time, we would reduce the mass of financial requirements on local authorities. We would get down to local people being asked to pay for services that were local in subject. I imagine that we would leave them refuse disposal, planning and a number of other functions for servicing the local community, as well as

951
a big scrutiny function. That could be done with much less money than we require local authorities to spend at the moment.
We would also take another look at the business of unitary authorities and say that, if we were removing the responsibilities from local government, it would be daft not to get down to a sensible pattern of unitary authorities across the country. There has to be a national figure to provide the balancing between rich and poor authorities and some element of fairness across the country. However, we would find that we were providing at least half of local authority finance with a much lower council tax. In council tax bills, even a pensioner pays £100 or £150 towards their district authority. I reckon that that pensioner thinks that he is getting value and that that is not too much.
If that pensioner paid £300 for everything, that level of taxation could survive the inefficiencies and inequalities that come with a property tax. As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said, in the mix of taxes that people pay, it is not a bad idea to have some that are asset-facing rather than income-facing, and to have a tax that is so clearly and obviously local, because an individual property is identified at the end of it.
We ought to start at a different point. We should not say that we have to find another way to raise money for what local authorities do now. Instead, we should ask, "What should local authorities do? Where are we?". Having decided that, we should then find a way to finance it. We would find that the council tax was a perfectly acceptable way of doing so. It is imperfect, but all taxes are. However, it would be a perfectly reasonable part of the pattern of taxation, nationally and locally.
Something needs to be done. We are clearly in a position where things are going wrong and it is not easy to find a way out. However, it is not right for us to look at what the Motion proposes as a way of raising additional money in ever-more complicated and difficult ways, for a result that is ever-more obscure. Let us try to get back to a situation where we can have local government being as free as possible to spend what it needs to spend, to do what it needs to do, because we have truly focused ourselves on what those local needs are.
As a last thought, for goodness' sake do not let us go back to the days of Derek Hatton and his bite on the business rate. He ran an extraordinary scam in Liverpool, and was impoverishing the local population so that it had to be supported by central government and became financially dependent on him. The whole problem spiralled in an extremely unpleasant and unhappy way for Liverpool, and Liverpool is in many ways still living with that. We really should not be so irresponsible as to let such a situation happen again. If we are to have taxation, let it be local taxation—let it to be something that applies directly to local voters.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Laming: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Newby, on initiating what I regard as a
952
very important debate. I think it important not only for the future financing of local government in this country, but for the much larger issue of the value that we place on local democracy. I am conscious that many noble Lords who have taken part in the debate have held senior positions in local authorities, and I hope that they will share my real concern about the health of local government in our country.
When I became a chief officer in a large local authority in 1975, I detected a trend that was already well established and has persisted since. It is simply this: that successive governments have produced a stream of new legislation that has imposed new rights and duties on local authorities, while devising new ways to control their expenditure and limit (heir freedom to act. Although the noble Lord. Lord Newby, said that the Government bore about 75 per cent of what local authorities spent, if we add specific grants to that—one was announced only a few weeks ago—I suspect that in many parts of the country, nearly 80 per cent of finance to local authorities is likely to come directly from central government. As he indicated, the remaining 20 per cent has to bear a wholly disproportionate burden of employer and other costs. The system is no longer sustainable.
I well understand that when a Secretary of State responsible for a service does battle with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and wins some money that is much fought-over, he or she wants to guarantee that it will go to the service for which he or she is responsible rather than it being reallocated through some general fund. Although that may be understandable, there are serious implications of pressurising local authorities in that way.
I should like to give two examples from evidence to the Victoria Climbie inquiry. The first is of the pressure placed on local authorities to conform to a national agenda. It was so great that local authorities that gave evidence to the inquiry implied that they were little more than agents of central government. Requiring local government to dance to the centrally composed tune is certainly not new, but I suspect that it is therefore becoming increasingly difficult to attract good people to put themselves forward for election to councils or, indeed, to become senior officers in situations in which they recognise all too clearly that conformity is prized over innovative leadership.
There are even more grave dangers. In a modern, open democracy, there must be checks and balances in the distribution of power. Those checks and balances need to be respected and, if necessary, defended. However, that will happen only if the majority of citizens feel engaged with their local communities and confident that their participation actually matters. The right to vote was hard-won. It is both a privilege and a responsibility. It should be cherished. Not far from your Lordships' House is a plaque to commemorate the great effort made by women to get the vote. In many countries the franchise has yet to be achieved.
But what happens in this country? In the area in which I live we have a parish council, a district council, a county council, and, if things go wrong, we may even

953
get a regional council. In addition, we have voting for parliamentary and European elections. On the face of it, that would give the impression that local residents felt empowered and very much involved in their local democratic processes. Sadly, the reverse is true. Few of my neighbours know the names of their elected representatives, and in some of the elections the turnout is less than 40 per cent. The stark reality is that the majority of the electorate just do not think it worth their while to get to the nearby polling station.
We need to take seriously the reason for the apathy developing in relation to such matters. Some of it is due to the fact that, over the years, a pattern has developed, particularly in local government, in which central government make claims annually about the generosity of the annual settlement for local authorities, only for the local authorities to announce large increases in council tax or cuts in services. There then follows a period of attrition between central and local government—a period of mutual recrimination—with the voter ending up believing neither. That is no credit to the democratic processes in our society.
The reality is that few people, if any, can now agree the basis of funding of local government in our society. My second illustration from the Victoria Climbie inquiry is that the evidence from the authorities that spent up to, or slightly above, the government allocation on a service displayed both a sense of virtue and a feeling that, if anything went wrong, the fault would lie with the Government as the Government had assessed the needs in the area and allocated funds to meet them. I totally reject the notion that anywhere in Whitehall has the machinery to assess the needs of a group of service users, be they in Torbay, Birmingham, Scunthorpe or anywhere else. To think that Whitehall can determine the needs of local users across the country does not make sense.
But where a local authority was spending well below the Government's allocation for a particular service, it was claimed that the grant allocation system was simply a crude distribution formula. It was claimed to be nothing more than a way of dividing the cake and certainly did not attempt to be an indication of the needs of the area. I might have been better persuaded of that if some alternative method of assessing needs of local people had been proposed. But, I suppose, the reality is that in many parts of the country, if there is no way of meeting local need, it has been decided that there is no point in assessing it.
I know that the Government have such matters in mind, but I urge them to accept that the current situation requires a far-sighted review of what we expect of local government. Here I recognise many of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. When we have decided the precise job and function of local authorities, we should then decide how we should finance them. It is important that we do so recognising that the current system of local government finance is a mess and is doing great harm to the democratic processes in our society. Furthermore, the current
954
arrangements cannot be sustained for much longer. What is needed now is a thorough review of local government and its financing.
So I am speaking neither in favour or against local income tax. It is worthy of serious consideration as one possible way of funding local government. But there are other ways that equally ought to be considered. I urge the Government to take the issues seriously and urgently to see what proposals may be brought forward to improve the transparency of both the functions and financing of local authorities. In this day and age we must find new ways of relating to the electorate. We must create new ways of engaging with local people and find better ways of securing their involvement. Our society will be helped only by greater transparency in the funding of local authorities.
However, perhaps above all, we need to find new ways of establishing clear links between raising finance and spending on services. At the moment people do not understand the connection between raising money and spending on particular services. If we ignore this opportunity to look seriously at what our society expects of local government and how it should be financed, we will continue to harm the democratic processes which we should cherish, defend and promote. In a modern, open and inclusive society local government is an important component and I hope that the Minister, who has great experience in such matters, will assure us that the Government are taking them forward both robustly and seriously.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest as an Oxfordshire county councillor. I also much welcome the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, who is to reply today, because he has, as the noble Lord, Lord Laming, has said, enormous experience of local government and has no doubt wrestled with some of the problems we are debating. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Desai—I am not arguing from a particular political point of view, but perhaps more from having dealt with such problems in local government.
Our tax system should follow a few principles. A tax should be easy to collect, cheap to administer and difficult to avoid. It should be progressive, so that it falls most heavily on those best able to pay; and it should be fair, so that everyone should pay and, ideally, the benefits and social security system should take care of the disadvantaged, probably by direct rather than indirect payments to them. An example of a fair tax is the petrol tax, because it is extremely difficult to avoid, everyone pays it and if one has a big car one pays more. On the other hand, vehicle excise duty is an example of an unfair tax because many people do not pay and those who do pay the same amount. That does not fit well.
The council tax and its predecessor, the poll tax, do not have most of the qualities that I have described. But, because it is property-based, it does have certain attractions, because property is a fixed asset that cannot move. But property values are extremely crude.

955
The noble Lord. Lord Desai, pointed out that they need updating regularly to be effective. Both the council tax and the old rates system were updated irregularly and, partly as a result, fell into disrepute. The council tax also bears heavily on retired people and is difficult to collect in areas with highly mobile populations. That disadvantage also afflicted the poll tax.
Regarding the expenditure side of the equation, the authority of which I am a member is about to set a budget—I hope tomorrow—which represents a 6.25 per cent increase in council tax. If the authority's charges that have to be made for providing services are taken away, 32 per cent of that money will come from the rate support grant, 29 per cent from the business rate and 40 per cent through council tax. Council taxes are very high in Oxfordshire. This year the increase from government grant is 18.1 per cent—and I gratefully acknowledge that the Government have given us a grant that is way above inflation. But there is a 2.1 per cent reduction in the business rate. I do not understand the reason for that, but I do know that currently there is a revaluation and the matter needs to be attended to. The council tax increase should be 8.2 per cent, but because Oxfordshire's district councils, which are controlled by a variety of all three parties, are to take away tax relief on second homes and cause people to pay for empty houses, the increase will really be 6.2 per cent. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about laying his head in Wandsworth, doing his work in Westminster and having his home in Hampshire, can be accommodated if there is a system that takes account of second homes and empty properties—and includes business rates. If the business rate had remained constant, our increase would have been about 5 per cent.
It is clearly impossible to defend a system of financing local government which depends on national government and the rate support grant. The system is hideously complicated and it is very difficult to understand, as. other noble Lords have said. My attention was initially directed to the short-term measures that can be taken to correct the anomalous council tax situation without raising aggregate public expenditure and could release local government from some of the pressure it is under on, for example, highway maintenance.
My short-term suggestion relates to the number of lines of public expenditure, to which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and others have referred. They are passported directly from central government through local government to the schools. The pension money for the police and fire services, which do not have centrally funded schemes, has to go through local government. The money should go straight to the services. Local government can do nothing about it—it has no option but to pay—so why does the money have to pass through its books?
Council tax would be reduced by a corresponding amount and I suggest that it is a lot of money. Council tax will fall from its present height, which is causing a great deal of public protest, to a figure which people are prepared to pay. But the Government, the
956
Daily Mail, the Daily Express and the Sun would have to give up the business about post-code lotteries. It is argued that it is the very antithesis that people should have different services in different places. I will support that provided there is a safety net through which people or poor areas do not drop.
Once that overall reduction has been made, council tax will fall. However, I plead with the Minister to allow councils to have a little extra money to deal with the terrible state of repair in which our buildings, schools and roads now stand. We do not have the money to keep them in good repair, which has been the case year after year. We are presiding over a multitude of crumbling wrecks and highways with potholes.
I then suggest that for about four years we should have an index related to the cost of locally provided council services. It would last for only four years because nothing lasts longer than that. It would give the opportunity of phasing in the income-tax based system, described by my noble friend Lord Newby. However, I accept that it needs a great deal of work. We cannot roll it out tomorrow, next year or the year after that.
I repeat that the benefit system must take care of welfare benefits. I am not in favour of having winter fuel payments, council tax benefit and so forth. I am in favour of paying a decent old-age pension, a disability pension or whatever, and let the person decide what he or she wants to spend the money on. It is no business of government whether they give someone £200-worth of fuel, a free bus pass or whatever unless revenue is generated—there may be an argument for that—because people should be allowed to spend their own money.
There remains the position of the business rate. I assume that business property is being revalued and it could be made subject to the same index to which I have referred so that the business rate payer would be protected against the Derek Hattons, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, referred. The business rate could rise only as fast as the basket of council services rose in value. I would be prepared to see some top slicing of that to cater for the areas of the country in which there are bad pockets of disadvantage and there is a case for equalisation across the country. It should not be too big. Furthermore, it should be an index system so that it cannot be manipulated by one political party or another in favour of people who are more or less inclined to support them at the polls.
I accept that local income tax cannot be phased in immediately. I have offered an interim solution and I hope that the Government will give it some serious thought. The suggestions I have made would bring council tax under control—and I emphasise that it needs urgently to be brought under control. We have to bring council tax under control while we move to a more equitable system, whatever that is, and I am prepared to put my weight into examining income tax. if the Government have better ideas, no doubt the Minister will tell us.
We must tackle the immediate problems of the unfunded pension funds of the police and fire services, which are threatening to cripple certain local

957
authorities. For example, in Merseyside the unfunded pensions of policemen is a huge burden on the ratepayers, and that is unfair. We must give local authority non-statutory services, such as the roads and buildings, some much-needed relief. We have to control the business rate by an index based on the cost of providing council services and, taking the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, offer a way of restoring the position of most council-provided services so that they are funded locally. That in turn will give people an incentive to vote in the elections. Turnouts of 40 per cent have been mentioned but I can assure the noble Lord that turnouts are as low as 15 per cent. That should alarm us all because if they are that bad we are in a parlous situation.
I hope that the Minister will listen to what we say. I am not grinding a political axe and I await his reply.
5.6 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, after six sessions on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, will agree is rather full of acronyms, I have been trying to think of some acronyms on this subject. Yesterday I was prompted by two which took my fancy and which are particularly relevant to my age group. KIPPERS is "Kids in Parental Property Eroding Retirement Savings". However, that can be countered by going SKI-ing—"Spending Kids Inheritance". I could argue that they have some relevance to a property-based tax, but I shall not try to.
I wondered about PALS—a "Proven, Accountable, Local Scheme". The policy has LEGs—"Local, Efficient, Greater Accountability". I wanted somehow to get fairness and transparency in, but "Fair, Accountable and Transparent", FAT, did not seem to have quite the right ring. So I thought why not just FAIR because it is "Fair, Accountable, In-use and Right"?
I welcome the balance of funding review, which the Government are now undertaking. Perhaps I should qualify that a little by saying that I welcome the fact that it is happening. I detect, as does the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, a Punch and Judy element to suggestions, including as recently as last week in Questions in another place, which come from anyone other than the Government. That is just what the public hates. I hope that today the Minister can assure us that Ministers do not believe that local income tax, or other proposals, should be rejected just because they are not invented here.
After all, it is generally acknowledged that a review of local taxation is required to address fundamental flaws. That term was recently used by the Audit Commission, which was even-handed in its analysis of where government and local authorities need to look to change their ways and the issues they need to look to. Government need to look at transparency; reducing direct control over councils through targets; reducing ring fencing; and recognising the importance of public engagement. The noble Lord, Lord Laming, spoke so effectively about that.
958
Engagement needs transparency—that has been an issue for a long time. I am sure that noble Lords who have local experience will have found how difficult it is to consult local communities on what should be the level of tax and the spending that will be enabled by that tax—again, taking a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Laming—because of the gearing effect. There is no faith in the system.
Early in my local government career, I realised what a problem that was in my ward in Richmond-upon-Thames, which neighboured the London Borough of Wandsworth. People living in Richmond in local authority housing, as it then was, were paying far more than people literally on the other side of the road in bigger houses in Wandsworth. That was all to do with government grant—how much came from the centre.
We are currently witnessing the importance of investing in one's locality—to take one current, interesting example, now that the constraint on the level of council tax on second homes has been lifted, I have read reports of local authorities saying that they will not collect at a higher rate for second homes unless they can spend what they collect in their areas. We know that the Government focus on new localism; we need true localism.
As I said, engagement is important, because the real debate should be about the use, benefit and value of local services. The harder a tax is to pay, the less people are willing to consider paying for services from which they do not feel that they benefit directly. Education and social services—especially the latter—seem to have few advocates.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, discussed diversity of standards. Perhaps he meant diversity of provision rather than of standards, although the two go hand in hand. Recent experience has been of a practical limit rather than any legal constraint. Many local authorities spend in excess—although that is an odd term to apply—on education because they want to spend more than central government say that they should or need to on education. That is not always easy to cope with; that forms part of the dialogue with local people. Reference has been made, especially with respect to education, to the issue of passporting.
Lack of engagement means a detachment—almost a divorce—from the whole political process. I need only run through a list of terms: capping, which brings the process into disrepute; ring-fencing of government grant; and centralising. On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I would say that to argue for more centralisation of services is a dodgy path down which to go.
To take local education authorities as an example, to argue for more centralisation of services is a very dodgy path down which to go. Their services are joined up with leisure and social services, to take only two examples. The noble Lord said that social services are now part of the health service. I agree with the first part of what he said, but go on to say that what we need is localisation of the health service, not centralisation of social services.

959
Your Lordships may be grateful that there is not time today for me to discuss targets set by central government. My noble friend Lord Newby rightly discussed ability to pay. Under the current system, there are problems not only with council tax itself but with the council tax benefit scheme, which is complex, so often benefit is unclaimed.
Council tax costs a fortune to collect. I understand that the collection rate in London is down this year. Interestingly, the tax base is up—no doubt because of second homes council tax payments, which we shall discuss in relation to the London precept. Should local tax be based on property? I understand that revaluation or rebuilding, which is in the programme, is likely to cost about £250 million—not an easy solution.
Local income tax has been rubbished—although not this afternoon—on the basis that it is easily avoided or evaded. I assumed that that is what is meant by comments such as, "Fat cats do not pay income tax"', which I have heard from members of the Government. That itself is a rubbishy statement. If anything, it is an indictment of the income tax system generally, because local income tax will be small in the scheme of things. If fat cats are avoiding paying their fair share, that must be tackled; it is not a reason to say that local income tax would be a bad tax.
I cannot remember who raised this point, but I make it clear that our proposals extend not only to earned income but to all income. I do not know if the "not invented here" syndrome extends to rejecting any type of tax employed outside the United Kingdom. As my noble friend said, local income tax is in use from conservative-minded states in the United States and in Switzerland to more progressive Scandinavia. As I said in my opening remarks, it is in use. Mind you, so was the poll tax, was it not, in Papua New Guinea? So local income tax is fair, accountable, in use and right.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, proposed a quinquennial upgrading of property values to reinvigorate the rating system. I hate to think what might be the cost of that, or what scope it might provide for gerrymandering. He said that assets are part of wealth. There are many issues surrounding people staying in large homes with earned incomes that are not immediately comparable with the size of the home. I am not sure that dealing with that is the role of local taxation.
The noble Lords, Lord Desai and Lord Lucas, talked about local income tax not being spent where it is earned. Again, that is part of a bigger issue concerning business rates. London now exports about £20 billion to the rest of the country. I do not say that it should export nothing, but that is an issue for Londoners. There would need to be some sort of equalisation scheme. That is not to say that we throw up our hands and do not have faith in the system, but there would need to be such a scheme.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said that when we consider the problems, we find ourselves defeated. That might be true for those who were involved in the introduction of the poll tax and then the council tax
960
May I dispose of one point: the suggestion that when one is on the Front Bench, one adopts an entirely different point of view. Many of us on the Front Benches—this applies in spades to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, know what it is like to be in government, because local government is real government and gives a real sense of responsibility. His particular accusation concerned planning appeals. As he well knows, we were dealing with a limited right to deal with a specific problem.
However, when the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, had finished knocking us, he admitted that there are problems. As I said, he mentioned centralisation. I detect no confidence that central government are more efficient than local authorities at providing services in a cost-effective manner.
In preparation for today's debate, I consulted the ODPM website to read the papers on the Balance of Funding Review. I was looking at a PowerPoint preparation labelled "Nick"—I think that it was Mr Raynsford's presentation of the problems of the council tax—when my screen froze. Up came the message, "Error: cannot be corrected. Save presentation and quit". The Government should take that advice.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Newby, for initiating the debate. There have been some very valuable contributions, on which I shall attempt to comment. I am still very much part of local government as leader of Essex County Council. We shall present our budget next Tuesday, with a council tax increase of 4.7 per cent, one of our lower increases, which we have worked very hard to achieve.
We have discussed this subject previously. I am very pleased to be joined on the Front Bench by my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith. He and I went through a lot together over many years in Essex County Council, which he knows as well as I do. In my early days in local government, in 1976, the Layfield committee said:
"Whoever is responsible for spending money should also be responsible for raising it so that the amount of expenditure is subject to democratic control".
At that time, rates were becoming extremely unpopular. Many householders were paying considerably more in actual terms than they pay now in council tax. Under that system, in real terms, rates would have been very expensive now. I attended a very large local government meeting, attended by around 1,000 people, at which the then leader of the Conservative Party, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, said that she would abolish rates as they were so unpopular. That is why the community charge/poll tax was introduced. It was unpopular and was replaced with council tax, which is now becoming as unpopular as the previous two systems.
The major reason for the unpopularity of each system is that governments do not contribute enough money to them. They did not put enough money into

961
rates. If the then Secretary of State had put much more money into poll tax when it was introduced, as the later Secretary of State for the Environment Chris Patten did, it would probably still exist. Governments try to do it on the cheap: each year, when the Chancellor works out his Budget, he wants to keep down expenditure, and thinks that we can keep grants to local authorities down, which increases the taxes that they must raise. That has happened very much during the period of this Government, particularly in education, as I have experienced.
Last year we had to raise council tax by 16.7 per cent, mainly to fund schools. We have since been vindicated by the Audit Commission. Just proving how money can alter tax levels, after the Audit Commission's report last year, the Government announced an extra £340 million for local authorities, which has fundamentally changed our level of council tax, as it has done for quite a lot of other local authorities. If governments put more money into the system, they can keep down the level of council tax. That is why the noble Lord, Lord Laming, was so right in saying that the local government crisis has happened because often people blame it for council tax levels that are not its doing.
In the UK we raise less revenue locally than in any other European country, except the Netherlands, and considerably less than in the USA, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and other countries. The amount of money that we raise locally is very low.
To start with, the Conservative Party is not in favour of local income tax. For the moment, we believe that we should retain council tax. My right honourable friend the shadow Secretary of State David Curry is carrying out a long-term review of how that might happen. Consequently, the shadow Chancellor, Oliver Letwin, when he said that 50 per cent of money should come from locally generated income, did not mean that council tax would double, as suggested earlier, but was asking how more money would be raised locally. I shall return to that matter later.
I wish to respond to some of the comments made during this extremely good debate. All the contributions were very valuable and pro-local government, which I was very keen to hear. I hope that the Minister will be pro-local government in his response. As has been said several times, he, too, has a local government background.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, made a very valuable comment, to which I attach tremendous importance, on diversity of provision. That is what local government and local democracy are about; we do not need to have exactly the same provision everywhere. The noble Lord, Lord Laming, commented on that also. That is a fundamental point that we should all consider. Other countries do not insist that exactly the same benchmarks apply everywhere. As a country we need to move towards that approach. I am pleased that James Strachan, the chairman of the Audit Commission, has said several times that he believes in, "Deregulation, deregulation, deregulation" and more autonomy for local government to take its own
962
decisions. If we could do that, we would not have some of the problems that we have on the raising of council tax.
My noble friend Lord Lucas commented on the complications of collecting tax. We are very much against local income tax and the problems associated with it. However, I am afraid that I cannot agree, and I hope that my colleagues on the Front Bench do not agree, that we should remove services from local government to reduce the level of council tax. Centralising services entirely would result in either a communist or fascist state. We believe in local autonomy; centralising all services is not the answer. We must find a way through the problems. There may be some ways of funding services differently. I shall return to that point later.
The contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, was valuable, as it highlighted the crisis in local government. According to opinion research and MORI findings, local government has become much more unpopular in the past year. Local government services are not unpopular. Libraries, education, environmental protection and other such services are popular, but people are not very keen on local government, mainly because of the level of council tax. The level of council tax depends very much on how much money the Government provide.
Neither most of my Front-Bench colleagues nor I would defend the previous Conservative government in that respect, as they did exactly the same thing. A future Conservative government will not do the same things as previous ones, in the same way as the current Labour Government are not doing the same things as the previous one did. Different governments can have different policies. We need to convey to people that, unless governments provide sufficient funding, they cannot expect services to be delivered locally to targets that they have set. The noble Lord, Lord Laming, made that very valuable point.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, made a very thoughtful contribution. I did not notice him speak much in favour of local income tax. He suggested a way forward now and gave the Government assistance on how we might reduce council tax bills. He proposed the idea, which I like, of funding the police nationally. That would instantly reduce the council tax bill by about 12 per cent. As there is not much local accountability in police funding nowadays, it could contribute towards a stabilisation of council tax at present.
We need perhaps to find some means of funding some education expenditure from the national purse. I would be reluctant to say that it should all go. Local schools are popular. The education service is a fairly popular service. It is more popular than the health service, which is a national service, although the Government are now trying to deliver it locally. It would not help anyone to turn the education service into the health service. It would not help the Government; it would not help the education service. There is a lot to be said for keeping elements of the education service locally. Schools are by nature local.

963
I hope that any system that any of us work out will not centralise the education service. That would be a mistake and we would live to regret it—
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that I meant that those parts of the education system that are funded nationally—that is basically teachers' pay—should be passported straight through and not touch local government? All the specialist services—inspection, or special needs, or the part that local government does add—would be funded locally.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I accept that point from the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. I said that we ought to find some way of some of the education funding, perhaps for the moment to keep council tax bills down, being looked at nationally. They were all very valid contributions.
Although I was attracted to local income tax when I saw it operating in Sweden, one reason why I and my colleagues are against it is that people do not want another tax. I have realised that people dislike new taxes. It would do a lot of harm to local government if it were to be funded through another tax that people did not like. It is far better to keep the tax system that we have but find ways of doing it better. We do not want to increase total national expenditure. Therefore we need to find ways in which money that goes into national government now can be raised in a local way. One could raise local business rates, subject to some constraints, so they could not go too high to upset business. One could use vehicle excise duty. One could use more income generation from businesses locally. New local government legislation helps us in that respect.
We need to find many ways—although we do not want to raise the total pot of money—of using locally money that comes into the National Exchequer and to have some local discretion in ways that we can do it. That is the way that we need to go forward over these next few years; not to have a new tax and disturb everyone and further upset the relationship between local government and central government, but to find ways of redistributing the pot so that there can be more democratic control locally. I would not agree with local income tax. This has been a valuable debate, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Newby, for introducing it.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I have greatly enjoyed the debate this afternoon, I suppose because it brings a sense of dejd vu. I do not know about other noble Lords, but we have been debating and discussing how to raise money for local services and locally-administered services for much of my political life, certainly in great earnest since the mid-1970s.
I have enjoyed the range of contributions and the important points that have been made. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Newby, on introducing a timely debate on the complex and important subject of local government finance. As the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said, it has certainly been wide-ranging.
964
We have had the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, wanting to take education out of the local funding arrangements; we have had the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, wanting to take the police out; we have had the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, saying that we should take some of education out of it and perhaps think about taking the police out. We have had the noble Lord. Lord Bradshaw, suggesting that he would put his ful I weight behind local income tax, but that he would not have it introduced immediately, perhaps phasing it in after four years. We were not sure in the end whether the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, was in favour of local income tax.
A range of different views have been expressed. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, made the point that there is not a lot wrong with property-based taxes, but they seem to have fouled up in the past largely because of bad implementation. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, concluded that although council tax was perhaps imperfect, it could be made more tolerable. We had a telling contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Laming, who expressed his continued support and affection for local democracy, given all of his experience in local government, but pointing us towards something of a funding crisis. He reminded us of the important point of needing checks and balances in the balance of power between local and central government.
If that gives us a flavour of where we have gone in the debate, I hope that it is a useful starting point. Perhaps I should begin the Government's response by giving some background to how we see things. This year's local government grant settlement was very generous, despite what many noble Lords have said about local government's funding from central government. Over recent years, there has been a generous level of support for local authorities in England. That is the essential context of the issues that face the local government finance system. Il is the reality of what is happening now.
Last Thursday, the Minister responsible for local government put proposals before the other place confirming that the total of formula grant would be £46.1 billion in 2004–05, an increase of 5.5 per cent compared with 2003–04. On top of that, specific: grants take the overall increase to 7.3 per cent. I do not know about other noble Lords, but some 15 of 16 years ago towards the end of Mrs Thatcher's regime, I would have seen that as very generous largesse indeed.
This is not in itself a one-off increase. It is part of a programme of sustained growth and investment in vital public services delivered by local government. Overall, government funding to English local authorities is up 30 per cent in real terms over the past seven years. This is in stark contrast to the previous four years of the last Conservative government, when year on year cuts were the norm. A real terms 7 per cent funding cut occurred over that period.
Some noble Lords, such as the noble Lords, Lord Hanningfield and Lord Lucas, have recanted on the Tory record. Those noble Lords should not be let off their responsibility for what life was like when we had a

965
Conservative administration nationally, and much of local government was run by Labour and the Liberal Democrats, with a small percentage of it run by Conservatives. We had to live with cuts, and they damaged services greatly. Over the past few years, we have done a lot to put that right and to take us forward to a new and more modernised level of local government services—
Lord Lucas: My Lords, perhaps I may pick the Minister up on that point. I agree with what he said, but he is talking about average figures. One can take the example of some of the south-western counties, where the entire increase this year is below average, and the entire increase has been passported through to education. Some counties are having to raise their council tax by 7 per cent in order to cut the budget for other services by about 5 per cent.
When there is such variation across the country, you cannot deal with these things on averages. The difficulty is not that the average is wrong. The difficulty is that the variation is so wide that there are some real losers. The Minster is putting counties in exactly the same position that he objected to my government putting them in. If it is medicine that I should take, it is medicine that the Minister should take too.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I was about to say that it is a fair point, but I am not so sure that it is. During the life of the Conservative administration, we had to live year on year with budget reductions. The noble Lord will say that there were winners and losers in that scheme, and I bet that he could probably find some big winners too. Year on year, we have had real, genuine increases. Over the period of time that I have been talking about, I described a 30 per cent growth in real terms. If the noble Lord could match that with the Conservative record, I would be very impressed indeed.
I am also happy to say that in recent grant settlements, we have removed ring-fencing from £750 million of specific grant. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Laming, was concerned about specific grant. Again, this year, we have reduced specific grant from 13.3 per cent to 11 per cent of the total grant. That is part of our general commitment. In the past, I have referred to reversing the trend of ring-fencing of grants to local authorities so that there can be more localised control and adjustment of the way in which funds are used.
The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, referred to new local government legislation. The Local Government Act 2003 provides councils with more independence and flexibility, including financially, and it paves the way for even greater freedoms for councils to improve their services. Councils now have more powers to trade and to charge for discretionary services and retain income from some fines and penalties. They will also have incentives to work with local businesses through the business improvement districts and growth
966
incentives schemes. The Act also provides for authorities, rather than the Government, to decide how much they need to borrow.
Another important new freedom for councils introduced by the 2003 Act is that councils can now, if they wish, reduce the discounts on council tax for second homes, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred. That will generate extra local revenue and will enable those local authorities that can benefit from it to spend the revenue on local services.
Having set out our generous stall, it is worth saying that we expect local authorities to deliver services in a cost-effective way. It is clear that the public are unhappy about the unreasonably large council tax increases in recent years. We, too, are concerned. We were disappointed that the average council tax increase in the past financial year was 12.9 per cent. In our view, that is an unsustainable trend. We have made clear that continued year-on-year increases in council tax on the scale that we have seen in the past year will not be acceptable to voters or to the Government. Electors will make their views clear through the ballot box. If necessary, the Government will use their capping powers. We do not make that threat lightly. We would prefer that councils answer directly to their electorates for their decisions. But we cannot stand aside if councils continue to impose unreasonable increases.
Given the generous grant settlement for 2004–05 and the scope for efficiency improvements, our view is that local authorities can and should deliver council tax increases in low single figures in 2004–05; so we are now looking at proposed council tax rises very closely. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, on his low single figure increase in Essex.
We are pleased that initial indications suggest that many authorities have listened and are planning increases in low single figures. But despite the significant extra investment, some local authorities have not listened and have indicated that they will impose large increases. Under those circumstances, it appears inevitable that the Government will have to use their capping powers this year. As of today, the Minister for local government and the regions has written to 65 local authorities where we have seen reports of council tax increases not in line with single figures.
I now turn to the Balance of Funding Review. For the benefit of noble Lords who are not familiar with its work, I would like to give some background. In the 2001 White Paper, the Government proposed to set up a high-level working group to address an issue repeatedly raised by local authorities and the Local Government Association. Local government argued that the fact that local authorities raised only one quarter of their own funding on average, and relied on central government for the rest, was bad for local democracy. They also argued that it caused the problem of gearing, about which we have heard much today.
The review steering group has met several times under the chairmanship of Nick Raynsford, the Minister. It has discussed the principles of a successful

967
local government finance system and commissioned independent research. That is all available on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website, about which we have also heard today. It is transparent and available for everyone who can get past the frozen screen to become engaged with. We have also held public consultations. The review is discussing possible local options. Perhaps I might emphasise two of its findings so far.
First, the research shows that much of the public are not clear where accountability for local government services lies or where the money comes from. What matters to them is not where local authorities get their money, but that services are efficiently delivered. There seems to be no sign of a direct link between the balance of funding and local election turnout. Probably, that was a surprise to many of us.
Secondly, our consultation shows that there are many concerns about aspects of the local government finance system, particularly gearing and the impact of council tax rises on taxpayers with fixed incomes. However, there was no clear or simple view of what needs to be done. There are no easy fixes or quick wins and we do not want knee-jerk conclusions.
There are options for reform: the review is looking at four. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, will be glad to learn that one of them is local income tax. The others are a reform of council tax, which seems to be favoured on the Benches opposite; relocalisation of the business rates, which seems to be partly favoured on the Benches opposite; and a mixed option of smaller taxes or charges. Here, I should emphasise that the fact that the review is hearing evidence on different options is not an indication that the Government accept that the balance of funding must be changed or that they favour any of the reform options themselves.
Many responses to the review consultation said that there were serious problems with council tax. But most of them suggested that council tax could be reformed rather than abolished. It is a tax that has done a good job for a decade and has been widely accepted until recently. It has advantages: for example, it is relatively easy to understand—the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, mentioned a test—and to collect. Overall, in 2002–03, local authorities in England collected more than 96 per cent of the council tax due in that financial year. That compares favourably with collection levels in the latter years of the old ratings system, which, again, was an easy tax to collect.
What kind of reforms might we be talking about? There are changes such as the revaluation of domestic property, to which we are already committed, and which is currently planned for 2007. That will ensure that a council tax bill is based on the up-to-date value of the house rather than its value in 1991. By the way, revaluation is not an exercise designed to raise more tax overall. Our 2001 local government White Paper made clear that its overall impact would be neutral. But it is necessary to avoid the valuation base losing touch with reality, a point made by many noble Lords, and is a real problem. People would not think it right for income tax to be based on 1991 income, though
968
some might see some benefits. Similarly, we cannot continue to assess council tax on 1991 property values. At the same time as the revaluation we will consider the case for change to the existing bands.
A point that came through strongly in the consultation was that people thought that council tax should reflect more closely people's ability to pay and should more accurately reflect variations in property values. Ways of doing that mentioned during the review included, for example, introducing new bands or a system of "regional banding". However, I should make it clear that we are not committed to any particular changes to the banding system. Before changing the banding system for council tax, we would need to examine very carefully the impact on those groups, such as pensioners, on low or fixed incomes living in high-value properties.
The review has identified that a key issue is resolving the problems of council tax benefit, to which the noble Lord, Lord Newby, referred in terms of take up. This is an in-built way to achieve what the Liberal Democrats say they want; that is, to introduce more "progressivity" into local taxation. Council tax benefit helps people on low incomes, including many pensioners, with their council tax payments. The problem is that some are not aware of their right to this money. Some of those who are aware are put off by the perceived stigma of claiming a benefit and are therefore reluctant to claim other than the slate pension. Central and local government together will do all that they can to ensure higher take up. We are already abolishing the restriction that limits the maximum council tax benefit for people in council tax bands F, G and H from 1 April. We are also considering whether any other improvements can be made to the system.
I now turn to the idea of local income tax, the second option being looked at by the review. Of course, it is the solution put forward by the noble Lord today. The Balance of Funding Review consultation showed support in some quarters for replacing or supplementing council tax with a local income tax, or at least considering the case for one. Perhaps it is worth pointing out that the Prime Minister has made it clear that the Government do not favour replacing council tax with local income tax. However, we are certainly prepared in the review to listen to reasoned argument. This is one of four issues on which we are asking expert organisations—in this case, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy—to provide further evidence on the pros and cons. It will give its presentation at the next meeting of the Balance of Funding Review Steering Group in March.
I turn to the specifics of the proposal for local income tax put forward by the Liberal Democrats and advocated by the noble Lord. I fear that these particular proposals could involve us in making disruptive and complicated changes to the tax system, a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, drew attention. Moreover, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said that we should not do this for at least four years, and then only after careful phasing.

969
First, the proposals would do little to improve the flexibility of local authorities. The Liberal Democrats would increase the proportion of local funding coming from central government by using £1.7 billion of their proposed higher rate tax increase to increase grant and keep bills down. Since authorities in poor and deprived areas would be able to collect less income tax than the richest areas, the noble Lord's proposals would mean that the poorer authorities would become more heavily dependent on grant. As a consequence, there would be less flexibility and a worse gearing effect for those authorities than at present.
Secondly, the proposals would involve substantial costs which are not mentioned in the Liberal Democrats' proposals. They would combine their local income tax proposal with an increase in the level of the personal allowance to £5,000, but this would cost an extra £2.4 billion.
Finally, the proposals have weaknesses which the Liberal Democrats have not considered. They have two ideas for how the tax would be collected—the first being to collect it during the year through tax codes, and the second to collect it at a standard rate across the country, then settling up at the end of the year with individual taxpayers by means of adjustment processes what they should have paid. The first proposal would impose additional burdens on employers—have they been costed?—who would need to deal with local income tax rates for every local authority in which their employees lived, and to account separately for the different amounts of local income tax they were subtracting from their employees' wages.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, said that this would reinvigorate local democracy. However, the second proposition for local tax collection seems a rather odd compromise, satisfying no one. It would be a local income tax in which, most of the time, the bill you paid had nothing to do with the rate set by your local authority. How would such a system promote local accountability and flexibility, and how would it aid the taxpayer in understanding how much money their council was asking from them to spend on local services? In addition, given that the mechanics of the tax system mean that under or over-payments would not be fully settled for months or years to come, this approach would be doubly complex and unpredictable for individual taxpayers, local authorities and the Inland Revenue. I am not sure whether this proposal would make local income tax more accountable because it would be a local tax administered nationally.
The third issue highlighted by the Balance of Funding Review consultation was the relocalisation of non-domestic or business rates. We have been told by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that we should not look at that, but nevertheless we are considering it. For the past 10 years local authorities have collected business rates although they have not set the level of rates or kept the proceeds. Central government now set a national business rate and redistribute the money to areas on a per capita basis. Relocalisation, a return to
970
the pre-1990 system, is not something the Government have favoured in the past, although I understand the strong demands being made for it locally.
Most consultation responses from councils have argued that relocalisation would resolve the balance of funding problem and encourage better partnerships with local businesses. But many in the business community would be strongly opposed to any change in the current level playing field for business. The Balance of Funding Review is continuing to look at this issue.
I shall conclude my remarks by saying how much I have welcomed this debate. It has provided us with a valuable opportunity to air some important issues, even if they have given me a sense of dejci vu and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, something of a depression. It is particularly useful that this debate has taken place during the Balance of Funding Review and I shall invite all those within the Government working directly on the review issues to take careful note of all the valuable points that have been raised in your Lordships' House. I have enjoyed the debate and I look forward to more of them; they are of great value. I look forward in particular to hearing more from the noble Lord, Lord Newby.
5.54 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, noble Lords will be relieved to learn that they will not hear much more from me today on this issue. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. All the contributions have demonstrated, first, the importance of the issue and, secondly, that the problem of finding a system of funding local government is neither new nor easy to resolve. Members on these Benches look forward with eager anticipation to hearing the outcome of the Balance of Funding Review and the Conservative review looking at alternatives to the current system. I am sure that we shall return to these matters in due course. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Climate Change
5.55 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer rose to call attention to the case for action at national and international level on climate change in the light of the recent statement by the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser on the threat which climate change poses to the world; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords,
"In my view, climate change is the most severe problem that we are facing today, more serious even than the threat of terrorism".
Those are not my words, but those of Sir David King, the Chief Scientific Adviser. Here in the United Kingdom, we certainly believe that he is right. According to Sir David, the UK is trying to show leadership by cutting energy consumption and increasing the use of renewable resources.

971
However, as I review where we are with climate change, although the United Kingdom Government have set a lead in this area, they have failed to get to grips with how domestic users can become individually energy efficient because they have not given the right incentives. In the case of business, the Government have failed because they have devised such a complicated set of hurdles and mechanisms that the opportunity for innovation and investment has been turned into a bureaucratic jungle and thus has, I believe, lost ground. I shall return to that point at the conclusion of my speech.
But at least the United Kingdom is part of the group of countries which signed up to the Kyoto Protocol. We are committed to cutting our CO2 emissions. There are countries which believe that climate change is a threat, but are afraid to sign up to a low carbon emission policy because they fear that it will weaken their push towards a stronger economy. In that group I would include Russia which, having seen the United States fail to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, had second thoughts because it sees the opportunity for emissions trading diminishing as a result. Then there is the group of countries, including India and China, which are moving fast towards industrialisation. They understand the principles behind Kyoto, but need to make the radical shift on to a different basis from that of fossil fuels.
Finally, there is a group of one, which is made up of the President of the United States, George Bush. As the world's only remaining super-power, the United States is accustomed to leading internationally co-ordinated action. It is willing to act decisively and unilaterally. It is even willing to help other countries in the international community address climate change issues through its technical co-operation programmes. But back at home, due I believe to the President, the political agenda remains firmly rooted in the freedom to drive ever bigger cars and consume ever greater amounts of energy in heating, cooling and transport. I do not believe that the Democrats, in their hustings speeches, have so far made the play they should on environmental issues. They know that these matters are fundamentally important and I wait to hear their candidates say so.
What does the international community say? Klaus Toepfer, executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme, said:
"The United States is the world's leading emitter of greenhouse gases, largely because it is the world's most successful economy. The US produced more than 20% of the world's carbon emissions while having only 4% of the world's population".
I do not usually like to use statistics in speeches because they can be dull, but those figures are so stunning that they have to repeated again and again: 4 per cent of the world's population producing 20 per cent of the carbon emissions.
Mr Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations, talking of the reasons given by Mr Bush for rejecting Kyoto, dismissed the idea that implementing it would be economically damaging. Mr Annan said:
"The opposite is true … Unless we protect resources and the Earth's natural capital, we shall not be able to sustain economic growth".
972
Like Kofi Annan I believe that the words "climate change" are a sort of shorthand way of describing the threat posed by profligate and greedy use of the world's resources—especially non-renewables. We can lose out twice. When we cut down and burn forests, not only do they emit vast amounts of CO2, they cannot act as carbon sinks to absorb CO2.
The world is depleting fossil fuels by using them as forms of energy when other forms are within our technical grasp. Unless the world grapples with this issue and solves it, we have been told by scientists that it will lead to human misery through flood or desertification and ecological disaster from the extinction of thousands, possibly millions of species.
This debate is particularly timely tonight because we shall have graphic illustrations from my noble friend Lady Walmsley and the chairman of the Science and Technology Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, who have just come back from the Antarctic and can give us a first-hand explanation of what is happening there. I am especially looking forward to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester.
The scientific community in the United States, in contrast to the President, has plenty of evidence of the gravity of the situation but apparently is not allowed to use it. On June 2003 the Associated Press stated:
"The Environmental Protection Agency scrapped a detailed assessment of climate change from an upcoming report on the state of the environment after the White House directed major changes and deletions".
The changes prompted an EPA staff memorandum saying that revisions demanded by the White House were so extensive that they would embarrass the agency because the section,
"no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change".
I highlight that because it underlines the importance of the statement made by Sir David King. It was terrific and brave of him to go to the United States and to make the statement that he did. It was very much needed.
In the recent All-Party Group on Earth Sciences meeting on climate change, Dr Bryan Lovell of the University of Cambridge—another very distinguished scientist—made the point about engaging with the developing world. We need to highlight that issue, and to be clear about our own national reaction to climate change, whether we are debating increased use of renewable energy or energy conservation. A matter very close to my heart is the need to lessen food miles, but I am trying not to go into that in detail. We can become absorbed in thinking about domestic detail. In doing so, we do not engage with the critical role of the rest of the developing and industrialised world, so I shall say a little on that issue.
The Kyoto Protocol will come into force after ratification by at least 55 countries, representing at least 55 per cent of total greenhouse gas emissions. That is a critical point because many people think that the Kyoto Protocol is already in force. It is not. As I said at length, the world's largest polluter, the United

973
States, refuses to ratify. The pressure is now on Russia which, with 17 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, would tip the balance to enable the Kyoto Protocol to come into force. I do not believe that Russia has decided whether to ratify. Given that, according to the most recent figures, Russia's greenhouse gas emissions are still rising at 6 per cent a year, will the Minister tell us what the UK Government are doing to encourage Russia to ratify the Kyoto Protocol?
Equally worrying but largely ignored is the situation in those countries with large populations that are undergoing rapid industrialisation, such as China and India. Both are signatories to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, but only China is a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol. Those are positive first steps and both countries are beginning to take action towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Next to the US, China is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions and its economic growth continues to be among the fastest in the world, with an average of 8.2 per cent per year. At that rate it will outstrip the United States in energy consumption by 2025. Twenty-five years ago private car use in China was unknown. It was very limited, yet by the end of next year the figure will already reach 24 million cars.
Energy consumption is therefore increasing very rapidly. I am not suggesting that the economic development of India or China is a bad thing. On the contrary, it will raise living standards, but the use of new and clean technology is absolutely critical to the development. When the World Wildlife Fund, China branch, said that one of the major barriers to the promotion of renewable energy development in China was the lack of information and international contacts, that worried me. What technical assistance programmes are available to those countries, and what effort are we making to share our knowledge with them?
Climate change is a global problem, and all countries share the responsibility and outcomes. For those countries and the rest of the developing world we must recognise that economic improvement can drive environmental improvement, and that environmental improvement can come about through economic drive as long as the policies and technologies are in place.
It calls for a new attitude, but climate change will be good for economic growth—not the reverse. For too long the message has been that tackling climate change will damage the economy. We need economists to say that that need not be the case. The United Kingdom and indeed the European Union until now have spent far too much time and energy in determining how to target, monitor and measure low carbon outcomes.
We Liberal Democrats have promoted replacing the complicated and unfair climate change levy with a straightforward carbon tax, which would be a great improvement. It would be simple to understand and would go to the heart of what we are trying to cut—carbon emissions.
974
The programme of measures in place are all about penalising energy use. I hope that the Defra review in 2004 will take the opportunity to deliver a programme of measures that more accurately target the problem. for noble Lords who would like to read more on this issue, the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology has produced a timely note for this debate—note 213 on climate change and business, for which I am very grateful.
In thinking about the issues, I concluded that climate change poses the threat of environmental havoc, about which I know many noble Lords will speak, but the most threatening aspect of globalisation that climate change challenges is our concept of democracy. The fate of peoples throughout the world is held in the hands of others who may live far away. They are not so much held in the hands as under the accelerator pedal. Our own actions and those of our nation are not isolated domestic agendas, but affect those who have no power to vote for change. What we do has a critical effect on others, yet they have no say in our democratic process. I hope that the globalisation process will recognise that fact and develop a much more robust way of dealing with the issue of climate change. The World Trade Organisation and the World Bank continue as though it were not the most serious threat to the future of our planet.
Finally, I must return to the issue of international leadership. At yesterday's pre-election press conference, Mr Bush concluded that his most solemn responsibility as US President was to keep the country secure from terrorism. Clearly he has not been listening to his own Environmental Protection Agency, fettered though it may be, or Sir David King. I accept that changing other nations' regimes or painting them as a threat is a much easier target than changing domestic habits, but less critical to the United States' future, our nation's future or the future of the world. It looks as though the US is in danger of setting off on a new diversion. A billion dollar programme to put men on Mars is not only irresponsible but immoral at a time when, according to the best science, the future of our country, that of all countries, and the future of our own planet as a life-sustaining place is so much under threat. I beg to move for Papers.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for introducing this debate and for her good overview of the political aspects of climate change.
Climate change is forcing decisions on governments, local communities, businesses and individuals about future policy and immediate action. If such decisions are to be taken correctly, especially in the United States, perhaps the growing dangers of ideologically-inspired terrorism and, as I shall explain, nuclear terrorism, may diminish. I shall comment on those decisions and hopefully make some suggestions that will be of interest to the Minister and those who are campaigning for sustainable development in the UK and world-wide.

975
As a professor of climate modelling at University College, the chairman of a non-governmental body, ACOPS, and of a consulting company that works in this area, I declare an interest. I was formerly head of the Met Office, where the Hadley Centre is based.
First, the work of the Hadley Centre and other research institutions around the world continues to confirm the hypotheses about climate change that began in the 19th century with the work of John Tyndall here in the UK and Sven Arrhenius. I was rather pleased to read last week that my great grandfather, William Garnett, a physicist, attended Tyndall's lectures at Imperial College in the 1860s, so there is a direct connection.
Those great scientists predicted that carbon dioxide and, as we now know, other gases can lead to the trapping of long-wave radiation leaving the Earth's surface. As in a greenhouse, where the glass traps the radiation, it causes the temperature to rise in the lower atmosphere up to a height comparable to where aircraft fly and to decrease the temperature in the stratosphere above that. Although more clouds are formed, which reduces the sunlight on the surface, the additional water vapour in the atmosphere leads to a warmer climate and has the net effect of trapping radiation and increasing the temperature. In the early days of climate change research in the past 20 years, that was a major controversy. However, it has now been settled. Satellite measurements also confirm that story, showing reduced long-wave radiation and a cooler stratosphere. In fact, some of the work of the UK's satellites has made an important contribution.
The physical and natural consequences of these changes in climate are considerable and quite variable in their effects around the world. In the UK and in north-west Europe we shall have more storms, rainfall will increase, and there will be a likelihood of higher temperatures; and that, of course, will also happen in many other parts of the world. This summer we saw 15,000 people die in France. In temperatures higher than 35 degrees Celsius, we shall certainly see very many more casualties among the sick and elderly. The largest effect on climate change is in the polar regions, with arctic ice likely to disappear in the summer months in the middle of this century. The permafrost is melting and retreating at about 10 kilometres per year, which may have the further knock-on effect of releasing methane and major greenhouse gases.
There is also the possibility, emphasised in a recent television programme, of the Gulf Stream and the polar ocean circulation changing suddenly. Computer models show that that is likely to happen only with a very large change in carbon dioxide—perhaps a factor of four—and that it may not occur for at least 200 years and only if no measures are taken to reduce emissions. One should realise that here we are talking about a variation in the world climate that has not happened previously. There have never been such high levels of carbon dioxide or even temperature. We should also remember that the ocean atmosphere system is in a sensitive equilibrium. In the past it has undergone sudden changes, which often have been quite local. Even with the world's largest Earth
976
simulator in Japan, certain processes cannot be reproduced precisely. Nevertheless, the UK can be very proud of the contribution made by its researchers, its monitoring systems and its prediction work, which has been supported by the present and previous governments and places us in a leading position to give world advice.
As a sometime engineer, and I hope a practical politician, I am also very interested in what can and should be done to mitigate climate change and to help communities adapt to its consequences. Here I believe there are several ways in which the Government could do better, especially in supporting more effectively those communities, industries and researchers who are pioneering new approaches. As one would expect of any British government, all of which are essentially run by the Treasury, the Government are seeking solutions with various market mechanisms. Naturally, with the strength of the City of London, the UK is doing pioneering work in this field. However, it is not yet clear whether the financial carrot approach is really producing substantial improvements in the efficiency of energy use, either in buildings or in transport.
We know that the UK is aiming to meet its Kyoto commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by an increased use of gas, which, of course, has lower emissions than oil or coal. I understand that the White Paper was vigorously contested in Whitehall, but it led in the end to the remarkable conclusion that there should be no firm commitment to any UK energy source, but more or less complete reliance on Russian gas, for the next 50 years. Wind energy will clearly contribute, but our reliance on Russian gas will be massive.
As I discovered last week, the Government have many different definitions of "sustainable development". However, in none could I find a prime commitment to security. A major storm, a flood, an industrial disaster or a geo-political threat can destabilise a country. In a parliamentary reply last week, my noble friend Lord Whitty defined nuclear energy as unsustainable. That is only one definition and it might perhaps be contested by the MoD, or by the country at large, if energy systems were threatened. I again ask my noble friend Lord Whitty whether there can be a stronger commitment to the universities and industry that believe there is a strategic need for the UK to have a strong nuclear capability.
The Government Chief Scientist has emphasised the UK's commitment to the international fusion programme that would produce clean energy. As envisaged, that is far into the future. However, in the United States and Russia there are now active programmes for examining combined fission and fusion systems, including the exciting idea of feeding nuclear material from weapons into fusion reactors. In the short term, that will certainly lead to practical power stations and an effective way of eliminating waste stockpiles. Perhaps we could even think of stopping climate change and terrorism in one system. At present that kind of thinking is officially verboten in the UK, but not in other countries, and I do not see why it should be.

977
In the Guardian of Monday, 12 January, there was a story of how the energy used by the Borough of Woking has been reduced by 40 per cent, compared with 10 years ago, using a combination of combined heat and power, photovoltaics and energy saving, and most significantly by moving off the grid. If you receive one and a half pence per unit for electricity when you put it into the grid and are charged five and a half pence per unit when you take it from the grid, it is no wonder that some people question whether the centralised grid approach is appropriate and compatible with local energy systems.
The reduction of electricity prices by one penny per unit in Woking emphasises the point made by the leader of this debate—that mitigation can really benefit people. Perhaps the DTI needs to revise its policy radically in this area and perhaps also advertise to a greater extent the remarkable achievements of that borough, which I believe need to be taught around the UK, rather than, as at present, regarding it as too clever by half and too successful, which, as we all know, is the worst possible crime in Britain. There have also been complaints about the grid from wind supply companies, and that is clearly a critical area for the UK to get right.
There are other important developments, which I am sure will be mentioned by others in this debate and also by the EU committee looking into climate change. I believe that that committee will report on the need for a more effective national energy centre to highlight and inform about innovation, such as exists in the Netherlands, though not here. We need improved monitoring of greenhouse gas emissions all over the country and we need better information for consumers about the market for improving energy efficiency.
Finally, I should like to make the point, also made by the leader of this debate, about how the world will look as the climate changes, as the temperature and the sea levels rise, and, as the World Bank predicted a year ago, most of the world's population will be living in huge coastal mega-cities. There, because of the lack of escape, rising sea levels and big storms, security issues will be critical. The Chinese Government, in particular, are very fearful of some of the consequences. We have to deal with climate change here in the UK but in future policies we should recognise its far greater impact around the world. This point has been made urgently in the debate and should be very much borne in mind by the Government.
6.20 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for introducing this important debate today. Her timing is impeccable as tomorrow we shall continue to debate the renewable energy section of the Energy Bill. Both of us are disappointed that the Energy Bill deals mainly with the decommissioning of nuclear plants and the establishment of the NDA. It brings forward only offshore wind farms in the renewables section; other forms of renewable energy are not included. I believe it to be a wasted opportunity.
978
It will give me great pleasure to listen to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, to whose contribution we look forward. I am sure that it will be both informative and thought provoking. As a Leicester girl, I am particularly delighted to add my personal welcome to him on the day of his maiden speech. We look forward to hearing from him often, while well appreciating the many demands made upon his time outside the House.
Under the Kyoto Protocol Britain has committed itself to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions to 12.5 per cent below the levels of 1990. In addition, the UK Government have gone further and wish to cut the 1990 carbon dioxide levels by 20 per cent by 2010. The Sustainable Development Commission has expressed concern that unless further action is taken, the Government's reduction goal of 20 per cent will not be met.
British industry has urged the Government to review their 20 per cent target, warning that it could be suicidal for UK manufacturing competitiveness. Digby Jones, the CBI director-general, claimed that the 20 per cent target could damage industry and that at the very minimum the Government should guarantee that other EU states will be equally as stringent in their targets. If not, it will make us less competitive.
The debate calls for action both nationally and internationally, but two questions need to be answered. First, will the higher targets set by the UK Government result in the loss of yet more manufacturing jobs? As Jeremy Nicholson, head of the Energy Intensive Users Group, said, the plans would force industry offshore where production costs and environmental controls were lower. Secondly, does the Minister accept that if this were to happen, it would be disastrous for the UK economy and would perversely act to increase global emissions?
Others have expressed concerns that the targets are too low and too slow. A recent report published in the journal Nature revealed the threat posed by climate change to the world's biodiversity. It estimates that unless action is taken now, between 15 to 37 per cent of all land-based animals could become extinct by 2050.
Defra's own website showed in April 2002 that annual temperatures across the UK may rise between 2 and 3.5 degrees centigrade by 2080, with the degree of warming dependent on future levels of greenhouse gas emissions. It forecasts that higher summer temperatures will become more frequent and cold winters increasingly rare.
We are aware and disappointed that both Australia and the United States have stated that they will not sign up to the Kyoto Protocol and that Russia has not yet decided, a point to which the noble Baroness referred in her opening speech. The US is predicted to increase its emissions by more than 30 per cent but I believe that we should not be deterred from making progress wherever possible.
In August 2003, Defra's website gave a break-down of our emissions. Industry was responsible for 38 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions; road transport for

979
25 per cent; domestic users for 27 per cent; and others—I am never quite sure what is meant by "others"—for 10 per cent.
Emissions from transport have doubled between 1970 and 2001 and we look to industry to continue to improve its technology and lower the emission rates. As was said earlier, we must acknowledge the part that biofuels could play in a reduction of the overall carbon dioxide emissions. In July 2002 the biofuel industry requested a reduction in fuel duty. The Government reduced the duty on biofuel by 20 pence per litre and, in the Budget of 2003, said that they would do the same for bio-ethanol from January 2005. That is welcome. Although the NFU criticised the cuts in the duty as "insufficient", it was not that it was not pleased to have the cuts; it felt that they were not enough to initiate proper growth in the industry. Will the Government change their thinking in this regard?
The Government welcomed the Defra Select Committee's report of 21 January this year and its warning that simply increasing the duty incentive may not be enough to encourage the development of a biofuel industry in the UK. On the contrary, it may only result in increased imports. Does the Minister still agree with that view? If so, what measures does he propose to strengthen home production?
At international level we have a duty to help developing countries to restrict growth in carbon dioxide emissions. We must assist them, for instance, to retain the remaining forests in the face of developmental pressures and to diversify without enduring the vast increases in pollution levels experienced in the West from the period of the Industrial Revolution onwards. We need the equivalent of a CFC ban to reduce the output of carbon dioxide and of the "Whale Watch" programme to protect the forests. Both have made significant improvements to our environment and we should have the imagination and the courage to duplicate them in many areas.
Speaking of courage, we must also tackle the problem of pollution and carbon dioxide emissions from air transport. Over the past 30 years, emissions from road transport have increased by more than 20 per cent in the EU as a whole and by 25 per cent in the UK. The outlook for air transport is a quadrupling of emissions over the next 30 years. Figures vary from source to source and expert to expert, but there seems to be general agreement that the increases from air traffic could completely neutralise the savings planned under Kyoto.
Barbara Young, the chief executive of the Environment Agency, predicted recently that the growth in air traffic could jeopardise all achievements made in cutting emissions. She said:
"The government needs to work with the EU, international bodies, its environmental advisors and industry, to reduce aviation's greenhouse gas emissions and to develop appropriate economic instruments that meet the environmental costs of aviation".
I know that recently there was a debate on a statutory instrument in which the issue of emissions from aircraft was discussed. Vast improvements in
980
engine design have been quoted in many debates. Those in favour of expansion cited hugely the reduced levels of noise and pollution. Could it be that setting stringent standards for all aircraft flying to and from our shores would ensure that at least total emissions would be contained and not rise above, say, 2004 levels?
I know that the question of the control of air traffic pollution is very difficult. It obviously affects us internationally. I believe that the one thing for which the industry would plead is that we do not set it too high standards and put at risk again our whole aircraft industry. Therefore, will the Minister tell us whether the Government are exploring the possibility of restricting air travel and air freight to machines that meet increasingly tough emissions and noise standards? I do not know whether the Government have considered and talked about that matter or whether it has been discussed at international level.
I now turn to what we as individuals can do. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and I recently worked on two Bills—the Water Bill and the Energy Bill. Working on Bills makes one very conscious of the need to conserve and preserve After the Water Bill went through, we were switching taps off very quickly to try to conserve water. In the same way, when we left this building at night, we switched off lights to try to conserve electricity, so there are things that we can do as individuals. There are also things that the Government are doing. I have posed serious questions to the Minister to which I hope he will respond tonight. I conclude by thanking the noble Baroness again for giving us the chance to talk about this important issue which brings challenges to us as individuals, to our nation and to the whole world.
6.31 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester: My Lords, may I take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the Members of this House and to its officers and staff for the way in which I have been welcomed and guided both at my introduction and subsequently? It was particularly gratifying tonight to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. I thank her for her kind and welcoming remarks.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, pointed out, the Chief Scientific Adviser has drawn our attention to the overwhelming significance of the issues before us today. As he put it, they are,
"more serious even than the threat of terrorism".
It is therefore difficult to imagine a more significant moral as well as scientific and political issue facing the human race. In the United Kingdom, we have not yet really felt the pain of global warming, so our response to the challenge can at times seem worryingly lackadaisical. The danger is that, when we do feel the full impact, it may be much too late.
The European heatwave of 2003, record temperature rises since 1991 and a 40 per cent thinning of the Arctic ice cap leading to rising sea levels, are evidence of this phenomenon. Our natural environment is being asked to cope with humanity's

981
pollutants to an extent that simply cannot be sustained. We may say things and repeat them often, but the words become so familiar that they stop having an impact. Today's debate with its call for action rather than words is entirely apposite.
It is good to report, therefore, that the Churches and other faith communities are waking up to the need to respond to this global challenge. We have two great advantages in coming to address the issue. First, we deal in matters of the spirit, of the heart and the emotions. Global climate change is of course a scientific matter, but it is also something that needs to touch us deeply and personally. To respond, we have to feel part of a global community not just of humans, but of all God's creatures and the planet itself. We have to feel responsible for all that is, and respond even though the real pain of global warming may not be experienced in our own backyards. The faiths are used to this kind of language, and we can and will use it to protect God's creation.
Secondly, our organisations are both global and local. Perhaps in recognition of these qualities, Defra has funded the Conservation Foundation to run workshops throughout the country for concerned Church people and others to learn what their faith teaches—spiritually and practically—about reducing humanity's ecological footprint. In my own diocese of Leicester, we will be organising such a workshop as an inter-faith event, because the issue brings the religions together like nothing else. Churches are taking up the Eco-congregation challenge. Dioceses are undertaking environmental audits and adopting environmental policies. The former Bishop of Hereford, who recently retired and is much missed already, has championed contraction and convergence at every opportunity. He has persuaded the Anglican communion and, most recently, called on the leaders of Churches Together in Britain and Ireland to support the campaign.
Those are some examples of attempts that the Churches and other religions are making to encourage action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There are many other examples of action by local agencies to address climate change, including in my county of Leicestershire and in the east Midlands. As an environment city, and in partnership with the organisation Environ, Leicester has initiated the "Keep Leicester Cool" campaign, promoting 10 steps that local people can take to protect the environment as well as providing advice to the business and education sectors. The east Midlands Community Renewables Initiative is also working with local communities such as former mining areas and local housing estates to integrate environmental technologies, using energy from biomass sources.
As the Chief Scientific Adviser pointed out, the Kyoto Protocol, although important, is not enough. We are now obliged to think carefully and urgently about what our post-Kyoto strategy will be. Sir David King has invited alternative ideas for future agreements about emissions control. Contraction and
982
convergence is one such idea—a simple yet far-reaching proposal to deal with greenhouse gas emissions effectively and justly.
Your Lordships will be aware of the solution to global warming devised by Aubrey Meyer of the Global Commons Institute. Contraction refers to the movement towards a formal stabilisation target of emissions that is sustainable: a 60 per cent reduction by 2050 is the often-repeated suggestion. Convergence is the sharing out of permission to pollute among all the people of the Earth. On a per capita basis, countries would be allocated their share of permits to pollute. As we well know, post-industrialised countries emit far more greenhouse gases then those in the developing world, yet have smaller populations. The richer countries can buy permits to pollute from the poorer countries and offer much needed development aid thereby. Contraction and convergence, therefore, is a simple yet radical solution, and one that I suggest we should be brave enough to support.
Next year, the UK enjoys simultaneously the presidency of the EU and G8. An opportunity that will not be repeated for decades is before us. The Prime Minister has said that he wishes to do something about climate change and about Africa, which is off-track for every one of the millennium development goals. Contraction and convergence is a solution that offers hope to both desperate situations. Climate change and sustainable energy use cannot be more pressing for the UK and the planet. It is in everybody's interest that these issues are debated and action initiated at all levels for the sake of our common future.
6.38 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, first, I offer my compliments to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester on his excellent maiden speech. I am sure that the House very much enjoyed the wide spectrum of his remarks. Personally, I found his explanation of the very practical measures being taken by the Church, and the spiritual and philosophical basis behind that programme, to be particularly interesting and inspiring.
The right reverend Prelate comes to us with a wide range of previous experience that he will bring to bear on our deliberations. His experience in business and in the Civil Service before he joined the Church and the very wide range of his ministry will give him the knowledge to help us as we legislate in your Lordships' House. I particularly look forward to his input on issues relating to children from his position as president of the council of the Children's Society and I hope he will join me in the all-party parliamentary group for children that does such good work on all legislation in your Lordships' House.
Secondly, I would like to thank my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer for giving us the opportunity of debating this important subject this evening. It relates to an issue which, if not tackled quickly and effectively, could threaten the world and—as the right reverend Prelate referred to it—all God's creatures upon it.

983
I am particularly pleased with this debate this evening because it gives me the chance to talk about a very interesting and exciting visit that I made last month with other Members of the House of Lords' Science and Technology Committee to the British Antarctic Survey base at Rothera. I would like to take this opportunity to thank BAS for its hospitality and for giving us the unique opportunity of exploring issues relating to our current inquiry into international scientific treaties and other matters. It was the trip of a lifetime and a great privilege. Neither the noble Lords, Lord Oxburgh and Lord Mitchell, nor our Clerk, Rebecca Neal, will ever forget it.
We were impressed by the grandeur and pristine beauty of the Antarctic, by the way the wildlife is so well adapted to the extreme conditions and by the quality of the operation run by BAS on behalf of our country, as well as, of course, by the quality of the scientists, all of whom were incredibly kind and patient with us and our many questions.
We were able to find out a good deal about why the Antarctic is so important for the study of climate change, increase our understanding of the atmosphere and the world's weather systems and our understanding of biological adaptation, colonisation and survival in extreme situations. Since my own background is biology, it is the biological side of what I learned on which I would like to concentrate tonight.
I would like to begin by saying something about the hole in the ozone layer, a matter that was of particular concern to us on our trip as we slapped factor 30 sun protection on to our faces every time we ventured outside. Although global warming and the ozone hole are two separate matters, there is a link, and I will come to that in a minute.
It was in the Antarctic that the scientists from the British Antarctic Survey discovered the hole in the ozone layer back in 1985. They had been measuring ozone levels above the Antarctic continent since 1957. It was initially studied because of its influence on the temperature structure of the atmosphere and as a tracer for the circulation of stratospheric air. In the 1970s ozone became the focus of attention because scientists realised it might be affected by the increasing amount of chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere coming from aerosols, refrigeration and air-conditioning systems and the like. The evidence for the destruction of the protective layer of ozone by these substances became clear in 1985.
The link with global warming can be easily understood when you know how ozone is destroyed in a seasonal way by CFCs. During the Antarctic winter a strong westerly wind around the continent, known as the circumpolar vortex, builds up in the stratosphere. This cuts off the interior and allows it to cool to minus 80 degrees. Thin clouds form which allow reactions with gases containing chlorine to take place. When the sun returns in the spring, the chlorine is able to break the ozone down into normal oxygen and, hey presto, you have a hole. As the stratosphere warms up again, these reactions stop, the vortex stops whirling around, and warmer air containing ozone flows in and closes up the hole; this happens every year.
984
Unlike Antarctica, which is a continent surrounded by ocean, the Arctic is an ocean surrounded by mountainous continents, which is why the vortex there is more irregular and it does not get so cold. That is why there is no deep ozone hole over the Arctic. However, it is predicted that there will be one within the next 20 years, despite the successful decrease in CFC emissions achieved by the Montreal Protocol.
The link with global warming is this: warming at the Earth's surface is caused by increased carbon dioxide emissions which can trap energy from the sun, blocking the emission of infrared energy from the surface and so warming up the Earth. However, this allows the higher atmosphere, where the ozone is present, to cool, and, as we have heard, it is these very cold conditions that allow the ozone-destroying reactions to take place. So, global warming not only presents us with the danger of flooding and desertification, it threatens the success of other measures to stop the destruction of ozone in the atmosphere.
Why is lack of the ozone layer a problem for living things? Anyone who has gone out without sun protection can see the result. Ozone provides a protective coat around the earth. It prevents harmful ultraviolet rays from the sun from entering the lower atmosphere and thereby protects us and all other living things from their effects. High energy UV-B radiation is easily absorbed by the DNA which we have in all our cells, and the cell can then not read the code properly. In extreme situations this can lead to the death of the cell and the organism. In our case it can burn our skin and cause skin cancer. The chlorophyll in green plants is also destroyed by this UV-B energy, and plants become bleached and non-functional. You can imagine how that might affect woods and forests, and the food crops on which mankind depends.
Just as we produce melanin in our skin which gives us a tan and protects us from UV light to some extent, so many Antarctic organisms such as lichens and mosses produce a pigment that protects them from UV damage. That is why you see bright orange, brown and black lichens encrusting the rock where the snow has melted. A study of these may be very useful in understanding how we can protect ourselves. However, there is a limit to how much of this natural protection we and all other living things can produce, certainly not enough to substitute for the ozone layer. That is why it is so important.
The living organisms in the Antarctic are remarkable in many ways, especially in the way they are adapted to extreme environments. Scientists are rapidly discovering ways in which a study of Antarctic creatures and plants can be applied to benefit man. It is becoming clear that the organisms that live at the bottom of the world are a priceless resource for good for mankind.
However, as pointed out recently in a report by Sam Johnston and Hamid Zakri for the United Nations University in Tokyo, there is a real danger that commercial biological prospecting in the Antarctic, if not regulated very soon, will get out of hand and could

985
damage the environment and limit the exchange of important scientific information through commercial confidentiality. If not actually banned by the Antarctic Treaty, this is certainly against the spirit of the treaty, which preserves the continent for peace and science for all mankind.
That is why the Antarctic Treaty group's advisory body, the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, known as SCAR, and chaired by Professor David Walton from the BAS, raised concerns about biological prospecting in a recent report. It stated:
"While no current instance of harvesting for biotechnology is known, there are obvious environmental ramifications of the taking of animals and plants as a commercial venture".
They recommended that the situation be watched very carefully.
We heard during our trip that the valuable work done by SCAR is badly under-resourced and much of the work is done by scientists with other jobs in their own free time. This is something that cannot be allowed go on and I wonder if the Minister could say whether the UK Government have any plans to take a lead in addressing this matter.
The sort of useful things we heard about are fish that produce their own antifreeze, and novel antibiotics that could be developed to serve medical and veterinary science. We heard how the Antarctic cod can reduce its heart rate to five times per minute at very low temperatures. Imagine how an understanding of the physiology of this could assist with anaesthesia. However, we also learned about the threat to these creatures of global warming. Experiments are being done in the aquarium in the Rothera laboratories on the effects of raising the temperature of the water surrounding some of the marine creatures found in the Southern Ocean. The temperature of the sea there is low but stable and it has been found that many creatures lose vital functions such as moving, feeding and burying themselves in the sand if the temperature is raised by only one degree. Two degrees can kill some of them; five degrees would kill most of them. Yet it is predicted that there could be a rise in temperature of up to two degrees in the next hundred years unless something is done to stop it. What a tragedy it would be if global warming were to destroy this wonderful and potentially valuable ecosystem. As Sam Johnston said in his paper:
"The Antarctic is a pristine global park and it needs to be preserved".
I believe that too much tourism, too much bio-prospecting and the possibility of commercial mineral exploitation are not the only threats to the Antarctic. global warming could destroy it even more tragically. I recommend that the Minister, if he needs any further convincing, should retrace the steps of the Science and Technology Committee last month and go and see for himself.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, I appreciate very much the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate. I share with him and with the poet Pope the thought that we are all,
"but parts of one stupendous whole,
"whose body Nature is, and God the soul".
I wonder whether noble Lords will allow me, in response to the noble Baroness's timely debate on energy and climatic change, to go back 31 years to the 1970s. On 28 February 1973 I stood precisely where the noble Baroness was standing this evening when I opened the first energy debate in this House. At that time there was no government Minister for energy, no government department of the environment and indeed no discernible government energy policy. Twenty-six years ago, I asked from the same place an Unstarred Question:
"whether there is cause for concern in the current increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and apparent change in global weather patterns".—[Official Report, 30/11/78; col. 628.]
The Question was based on the advice of Sir John Mason to me when he showed me the original paper that he presented to the Royal Society at about that time. I had hoped that the government of the day would take note of the moral contained in the parable that I quoted about the wise and foolish virgins and create a permanent energy commission made up from businessmen, scientists and politicians. The terms of reference would have been to create and implement a flexible energy policy for the future, one which would wisely protect the nation's fuel supply and the environment at the same time by maintaining a large nuclear generating element to keep the lamps burning regardless of the political persuasion of the government of the day.
Unfortunately, I do not recall in the intervening years the formation of such a body or a proper debate about a coherent and continuing policy from any of the political parties with regard to nuclear power generation or even talk of the possibility of a hydrogen-based economy, based on electricity produced by nuclear power. All that has emerged so far are the good intentions of the Kyoto Protocol—which as far as the United States is concerned are apparently optional, while the rest of the world will try no doubt to conform to it.
In my view—perhaps the Minister will persuade me otherwise—Kyoto will do little at this stage to reduce global carbon emissions. What it may succeed in doing is to create out of every extra tonne of carbon generated into the atmosphere just one more tax collector, businessman or lawyer to make capital out of it at ground level. I think that this rule could be applied equally to countries such as the United Kingdom which accept the protocol and those such as the United States which do not. In this connection, it might be educational if the Minister could divulge to us how many of his departmental staff are employed in what might be deemed carbon-related jobs and what proportion of the whole they make up.

987
I wonder whether the Minister can tell us why we have to ask the very same questions in our debate today on climate change that were asked 30 years ago. Perhaps my noble friend Lady Greenfield may have given us part of the answer in the opening speech of her recent seminal debate on communications between scientists and politicians when she said:
"Politicians … with their limited tenure of office, need answers quickly and have a time scale of three years or usually much less".—[Official Report, 9/12/03; col. 652.]
For example, can the Minister say today what will be the Government's position on nuclear power generation three years hence? I doubt it, unless he can predict with absolute certainty that he will continue to be at the Dispatch Box after the next general election. Of course we all hope that he is there. However, is that not always the problem when it comes to laying down a responsible long-term energy policy?
I spent three of what I look upon as the intervening years as chairman of the Parliamentary Group for Alternative Energy Strategies, in pursuit of an answer to this problem. PARLIGAES, as it was known, became a forum where civil servants, businessmen, students, scientists and politicians from all parties could freely discuss and debate how alternativesources of power generation might be able to meet the problem of global warming. Looking back on those days, I like to think that PARLIGAES made some valuable contributions to the foundations of the commendable alternative energy strategies that the present Government are attempting to pursue today.
However—and it a very big "however"—it was always assumed then, and it must be assumed now, that nuclear power would be a major contributor in reducing carbon emissions in the atmosphere. Alternative energy supplies would always remain an added bonus to the equation in any responsible long-term energy policy. Was that fact not confirmed when BNFL stated recently that in 2002–03 it supplied 17.4 TWh (terawatt) hours to the National Grid, thus saving 7.5 million tonnes of CO2 emissions?
How is the department's climate change programme intended to reduce emissions by 20 per cent without relying on a meaningful nuclear generating element and without stifling business through having to ration electricity if the economy continues to grow at its present rate? Can the Minister also say how many terawatt hours of electricity his department estimates will be supplied 24/7 from clean non-nuclear alternative energy sources in 2010? I do not count gas as an alternative energy. According to the Government's own paper on energy, all existing Magnox nuclear reactors will have been shut down by 2010, and so will some of the remaining advanced cooled reactors. Therefore, will the Minister not agree that approximately 20 per cent of current electricity demand will have to be replaced by 2010 from clean non-nuclear alternative energy sources? How on earth will that be possible?
To make matters worse—that is, if I understand the present situation correctly—all three main political parties do not have the political will to beget a renewed nuclear generation programme. Therefore, unless
988
there is a radical change of heart, there will be no nuclear industry—apart from waste management—in this country by 2020.
After talking to astronomers, astrophysicists and other scixentists whose work is in the near-space environment, I have been convinced as a non-scientist that global warming is not due entirely to industrial expansion over the past century. It seems that there is increasing evidence that the sun is a major part—60 per cent—of the reason for the increased temperatures on the Earth's surface and in its atmosphere and oceans.
As a result of wanting to learn more and to hear the latest on what scientists have to say to us politicians, I set up the All Party Group on the Astronomy and Near Space Environment Group, known as APASEG, about four years ago, of which I am the chairman. Scientists approach things differently from those of us in the political spectrum, and much more cautiously. However, they are saying that the sun has a variable output and can suddenly at any time increase its heat, or—as it did in the Maunder minimum, when there were no sunspots—seriously reduce its heat, with major effects on the surface of the Earth.
I think that energy policy, whatever it may be, has to make allowances for that. Therefore we should have a very large back-up. The Government's chief adviser says that this is the hottest that the Earth has been for the past 420,000 years. The mild winters and the prospect of more to come with global warming is not entirely unattractive to many people. Provided that the coastal defences are in place and flood waters kept in check, most people do not seem to have many worries for the future of northern Europe.
According to the press today, the swallows have started to arrive already in south-east England However, the scientists are saying something different, and they are saying it with caution because they do not know what is going to happen. They are saying that all this may not necessarily be good news, particularly for those of us who live in Scotland or any other of the northern latitudes of Europe. For if the ocean temperatures change due to the melting icecaps and the sun increases its intensity and pushes the Gulf Stream away from our shores, the temperatures, instead of rising, will drop to those of northern Labrador at the same latitude. Therefore, must not any medium or long-term energy policy at the end of the day, at the end of an integrational period—in which we are now living—require complete flexibility to cope not only with hot summers but with very cold winters?
We can say that that may not happen for another 200 years, but on the other hand the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has just been to the Antarctic with the British Antarctic Survey—the core samples taken from Greenland and parts of the Antarctic clearly show that there is often a sudden change from a very hot to a very cold Earth. No one quite yet knows the powers that create these things.
I have suggested that only a new nuclear energy programme can achieve that in this country. Many people are against nuclear power because they may

989
believe that it somehow goes against nature, in spite of the fact that our sun is a major source of radioactivity throughout interplanetary space. However, there can be no argument that nature is benign; it is not. It has been an unforgiving, indiscriminate and indifferent killer of humankind in large numbers throughout the ages. The recent earthquake in Iran, which took more than 30,000 lives in a matter of minutes, is surely proof of that. Nevertheless, in present form it would seem that it will be not nature but short-term politics that will eventually put out the lights on this planet.
7.1 p.m.
Lord Methuen: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to thank my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer for giving us the opportunity to debate this important subject. Last week, with some other members of the Science and Technology Committee, including our chairman the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, who will be speaking later in the debate, I was able to visit the new Meteorological Office centre in Exeter, both as a general informative visit for the committee's benefit and in connection with Sub-Committee II's inquiry into the practicalities of renewable energy.
Our Meteorological Office is a world leader in its activities in developing weather forecasting and climate change research. We were given a series of presentations covering many aspects of its work. Its climate change work is of obvious relevance to this debate and I have drawn on its presentations extensively in my speech.
The Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research has been mentioned. It was opened by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, in 1990, and is the UK research centre into climate change. Its main funding comes from Defra, backed up by funds from other government departments and the EU. The Meteorological Office is dependent on its commercial activities for the benefit of various organisations.
The Hadley Centre's mission is to understand the climate system and to represent it in mathematical models to monitor both global and national climate change to predict future change. To do that it needs to understand the causes and thus provide advice to the Government. Its research covers many areas looking at long-term changes in global temperature since the 1860s and carbon dioxide and methane levels more recently. It has noted the effects causing global cooling such as the eruptions of Krakatoa in the 1880s and more recently that of Mount Pinatubo. It has developed models which show the temperature changes which might occur with and without human intervention in our eco-system. Its research shows, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, said, that human activity is undoubtedly a major influence.
The aim of the Meteorological Office is to improve the quality of its climate change models by quantifying and reducing the uncertainty in the predictions. This uncertainty covers such things as the natural variability of global climate systems—including solar
990
radiation—the emission levels of the various greenhouse gases, the forcing of climatic conditions due to volcanic eruptions and the lack of knowledge as to how global climatic systems respond to these changes.
Various scenarios can be developed which produce widely differing results over the next hundred years due to the uncertainty factors in the models. This indicates the need for better climatic models—higher resolution within the model and increased complexity due to a better understanding of climate change factors, leading to increased credibility in the model. It is then possible to explore how the model responds to various parameter sensitivities, leading to less uncertainty and further confidence in the results. All this requires greatly increased computer resources, which the Meteorological Office currently is in the process of installing. Such an office can always use as much computer resource as can be made available by current technology.
Looking at the evidence, UK climate variability change now occurs against a background of global warming. On a 10 to 20-year time-scale, central England summer temperatures are at a record level. Winters have tended to become more stormy and noticeably milder. Patterns of ocean surface water temperature are implicated in both summer and winter seasonal changes.
What about sea level change? Predictions for 2100 indicate a rise of 10 to 90 centimetres between the least and most extreme climate models, and assume that the Antarctic ice sheet remains substantially intact. Such sea level rises will have a disastrous result if we have a repeat of the North Sea surge of 1953 when large areas of East Anglia, Canvey Island and Holland suffered disastrous inundations and many lives were lost. The Thames barrier should protect London, but if that failed we would lose most of the Underground system with catastrophic economic effects.
If the Antarctic ice sheet melted, there could be sea level rises of some six metres. A mass movement of population away from the affected areas in places such as Bangladesh would lead to enormous international problems in what are likely to be already overcrowded areas; one can imagine the effects.
Whatever we do now, it will take years to compensate for our past extravagances due to the inbuilt delays of our global climate system. Therefore I encourage the Government to take all necessary steps to get the developing countries and the USA and Russia to ratify the Kyoto protocols.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, this has been a very good debate and I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for having introduced it. We live on a remarkably tolerant planet. Whether or not you accept the Gaia hypothesis—and I see no reason not to do so—Earth needs to operate between fairly close physical limits to support the life on it and so far, it appears to have done so.

991
But there can be no doubt that we as species are running the planet and ourselves into serious trouble. When I say serious trouble I do not just mean events such as the Hundred Years War or the slaughter of the Great War—and the equally homicidal flu epidemic that followed it—or the mass murders of the atom bomb 50 years ago, or even the global threat of Aids. We are talking about events which will threaten the very existence of life on the planet.
Climate change is happening and although it has happened before, it seems now to be on a totally different scale and to be caused by the actions of mankind—by you and me, my Lords. Although most of us in this Chamber will not live long enough to go down with the ship, as it were, we can not be at all sure that our grandchildren will not.
We are asked in this debate to consider the challenges of climate change. It is a completely different order of threat from the other matters that occupy us these days such as the fight against terrorism. However, there is one area where they overlap and that is in the nuclear field. Most of the manifestations of terrorism that we have seen or can imagine are not planet-threatening. But nuclear terrorism might be, and that is why, if the President of the United Stales should, as is widely suspected, be tempted to take really violent steps to bring so-called "rogue states" under control, one can see the logic, even the morality of his reasoning. One need not necessarily agree with or approve of it—I do not—but the United States of America and its president cannot be said to be totally unaware of what is happening, merely because they are not helping as much as they should do on climate change.
Apart from nuclear and conceivable biological threats, the actions of terrorist organisations, however widespread, are likely to be mere blips on the history of mankind. But climate change may well be of a different order altogether. We in this Chamber may share with the powers-that-be in the other countries of the world a responsibility vaster than any previous generation has had to shoulder. It was for that reason that I was one of the founder members of the Green Liberals and an enthusiastic member of the Green Liberal Democrats—I salute their initiative in bringing the subject before us today —and eventually joined the Green Party, which alone in my view of politicians takes the problem seriously enough.
In passing, I should like to pay tribute to our Green MEPs, who are tirelessly involved in the area, especially Caroline Lucas. I draw noble Lords' attention, if it has not been drawn to it already, to the Bill that I have placed before the House at the moment on the subject of air traffic emissions and airports. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred to those issues as a major problem.
Tireless we too must be if we are to shoulder the burden. In the history of the planet, I believe terrorism to be a disease that needs urgent measures. But climate change may be mortal and, in fighting it, We have promises to keep and miles to go before we sleep'.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Oxburgh: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. for introducing this very opportune debate. I, too, wish to congratulate the right reverend Prelate on his most successful maiden speech.
The atmosphere and the oceans work together to give the Earth an integrated central heating and air-conditioning system. All life depends on it. If we change the properties of the atmosphere so that the earth retains more of the heat reaching us from the sun, it is much the same as turning up the Earth's thermostat a notch or two. For more than 150 years, we have done exactly that by burning coal and oil and releasing into the atmosphere carbon that has been stored in the Earth's crust for many millions of years. There are those who dispute statements of that kind. I think that they are wrong. They are certainly swimming against the near consensus of international scientific opinion, including—it is worth recording this—that of the US National Academy of Sciences.
This is not the occasion for detailed analysis of the arguments. Suffice it to say, as has already been pointed out, that the composition of the atmosphere can change naturally, and we now have a pretty good idea of how its composition has varied in the past. That comes from analysing the bubbles of atmospheric air trapped by successive layers of snow over hundreds of thousands of years in polar glaciers. We can therefore compare recent changes with those of the past. The increases in atmospheric CO2 and global temperature observed over the past century are faster and more extreme than have ever been recorded in the geological past, and correlate precisely in time with the widespread burning of fossil fuels. That and a host of other more complex arguments build what I believe is a virtually unassailable circumstantial case that it is we who, by our actions, are bringing about a rise in global temperature and associated climate change.
So what do we mean by climate change and global warming, and would it not be a good thing, as has been suggested, if the average temperature of the Earth increased by a few degrees by the end of the century? It is important to recognise that global warming does not mean that the whole earth becomes uniformly a little warmer. The climate at any one place depends on the dynamics of the winds and the ocean currents, and on their interaction. Even small changes in average temperature are enough to change the patterns of global circulation with the result that some places may become very much warmer and others very much cooler, or drier, wetter, stormier or more calm. It is simply very difficult to say.
Even so, is that important? Why cannot civilisation simply adapt to climate change? Up to a point we probably can, provided that at any one place the change is steady and progressive. Urban life will change, and technology will make the new conditions bearable. However, for agriculture and the world's food production, there will be very clear winners and losers—and the losers will inevitably become the next

993
wave of economic migrants. For the very poorest peoples whose climate has deteriorated, we are likely to see more and larger devastating famines.
Unfortunately, not all changes in climate are slow and progressive over decades. Although they are much less fickle than the winds and may remain steady for millions of years, ocean currents can, like the wind, suddenly change if the delicate balance of driving forces is altered. One of those forces depends on temperature. From our point of view, the greatest concern is the Gulf Stream, which underpins the temperate climate of the British Isles. It allows palm trees to grow in the Isles of Scilly while Nova Scotia freezes. Nova Scotia and the Isles of Scilly are at the same latitude but on opposite sides of the Atlantic. If the Gulf Stream switched off, we should feel the consequences in a year or two, not over decades. The implications for agriculture, wildlife, energy and shipping would be devastating.
The problem is that, pace the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, it is very difficult to predict how much warming there can be without triggering such major change in ocean circulation. Although we cannot avoid some of the effects of global warming that are already with us, the consequences of a drastic circulation change are likely to be so rapid and devastating that they are worth avoiding if we can.
So what can be done? It has been suggested that the problem can be managed through planting more trees; that can help a little, but it is very little and not a solution. Ideally, we would stop burning fossil fuels and releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, but that cannot happen overnight. Both the EU and the UK Government are already taking the matter seriously, and are making commendable efforts to promote other sources of energy and to limit emissions to satisfy the Kyoto proposals. They are working to persuade other countries to do so as well. Other countries differ widely in their responses; many noble Lords have made the point that it is to be regretted that the US Government have chosen to ignore the advice of their scientists. Nevertheless, a number of individual US states and global companies in the US have voluntarily agreed to limit emissions.
But what of the developing countries? Although pressure can reasonably be brought to bear on developed countries to reduce their emissions, the same cannot be expected of developing countries. Developing countries in general have much lower per capita CO2 releases than the developed world, and as their economies become more prosperous so will their energy use grow. They are also the countries where greatest population growth, and hence growth in energy demand, is to be expected. They may reasonably argue that the problems that the Earth now faces are the direct result of the developed world passing through the stage on which they themselves are now entering.
They will need energy and they will take it from the cheapest source. For at least two major countries, India and China, that source will be coal. Both countries have abundant supplies of readily accessible
994
coal which they seem bound to use. For a given amount of energy produced, coal releases more CO2 to the atmosphere than any other fossil fuel. That could completely dwarf and overwhelm the emissions savings of ourselves and other countries.
That suggests for the developed world that there should be a twofold strategy: first to limit its own emissions as tightly as possible—as is beginning to happen; secondly, and as the very highest priority, to redouble efforts to find an inexpensive and efficient means of carbon sequestration. It is possible in principle thereby to remove CO2 from gases produced by burning fossil fuels and preventing it entering the atmosphere. Then we would need to make that technology available inexpensively to the developing world. Arguably it is the most important contribution the UK could make to the problem of global warming. It has the additional advantage that, if successful, it could considerably ease our own transition to a low carbon economy.
It makes good sense to move away from fossil fuels as fast as we can, but we have to recognise that the full transition will take a number of decades. However, it would be wildly irresponsible for us not to use other means of reducing CO2 emissions during that transition. We should urge the Government most strongly to set carbon sequestration as a prime challenge for the relevant UK research community and to make the funds available to meet it.
I declare an interest as a former chairman of the Government's inter-departmental panel on climate change and as a non-executive director of Shell Transport and Trading.
7.22 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, the debate has been extremely interesting and I thank my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. I also congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester on providing a thoughtful and thought-provoking discussion of some of the developments that are taking place in his own diocese, among others, and raising wider matters for us to think about.
One of the conclusions that we can draw from the debate is that climate change is for real. Despite people sometimes wondering over the past 25 years whether we are merely experiencing a little variation in the ice ages, the speeches we heard from the noble Lords, Lord Hunt, Lord Tanlaw and Lord Oxburgh, and the changes we have seen leave us in no doubt, as the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, said, that there is an unassailable circumstantial case that humankind is bringing about unprecedented climate change.
As a result, as we have seen in south-east England, there have been relative rises in temperature. It is expected that by 2050 we will see an average change of between 2 and 4 per cent—with mostly higher summer temperatures and less snow and frost in winter. But some of the violent swings and violent storms that we have seen, even in the past week, have shown us how quickly we can move from a cold climate to a much warmer one. I believe that that is to be expected. One

995
prediction is that inevitably we shall see worldwide rises in sea levels from the melting of the Antarctic and Arctic ice caps—88 centimetres by the end of the century. That will swamp many low-lying parts of the world. Even here in Britain we will see many of our wetlands dry out in the summer unless we do something. The danger of flood damage from winter rains will be extreme.
Nature over the ages, as the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, said, has been unforgiving and indiscriminate. Such changes have been discussed, both nationally and internationally, over the past 25 years on many occasions. The big international conferences in Rio de Janeiro, Kyoto and Berlin, particularly, have made people aware of such developments and what we need to do if we are to limit their implications. We all know that we have to do something about CO2 emissions. Some countries have done more than others. It is an issue that has been taken up by many European countries, including our own. Sometimes we have not been slow in congratulating ourselves on our actions, but if we look around the world there are other countries that have done rather more than us.
In today's debate we have castigated the United States many times for its failure to ratify, or put its name behind, the Kyoto agreement. We are also worried about Russia's position. As economic development progresses throughout Russia and the former countries of the Soviet empire we are seeing economic benefits for people who inevitably wish to follow the same paths as ourselves. At the moment if the whole population of the world was to live at the standards of south-east England we would need three and a half planets to satisfy our need. If we all lived at the level of the United States that figure would be six planets.
What is to be done? The Motion calls for action at "national and international" levels. It is vitally important that we operate at an international level and that we manage to forge international agreements that pursue strategies to limit carbon emissions. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, talked about the need to set in motion an international emissions trading system. Again, picking up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, about the development of China and India, whose economies are largely based on coal, unless we begin to develop some form of international trading system for emissions there is no way in which the inevitable increase in those countries' emissions can be counterbalanced by reductions elsewhere. Therefore, it is vital for us to pursue those international agreements. I also take to heart the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, about the development of carbon sequestration. If we go back 20 years to the middle of the 1980s, when microelectronic technologies were pouring forth—if only we had picked up, used and applied some of those technologies—it is sad to reflect that countries such as China, which were beginning to emerge from the process of industrialisation, could have jumped over the fossil fuel stage and moved more quickly to pick up
996
new technologies that were far more energy efficient. We missed those opportunities and we are now "ruing the day".
I want finally to return home and examine some developments that are taking place next door to where I live; the borough of Woking. They were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. They illustrate very well how small measures, consistently taken over time, can build up to something that is more significant. We should still bear in mind that the contribution is remarkably small, but if all local authorities were to pursue the same policies we might begin to see more consistent results. It picks up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, that unfortunately politicians tend to expect a three-year time scale. Here we are looking at a much longer one.
Woking began its development in the early 1990s, which was post-Rio when Agenda 21 started to appear on local authorities' agendas. It was also stimulated by the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995. It looked at its sheltered housing and recognised that if it converted its boilers, or used mini-turbines, it could have micro-combined heat and power facilities. It therefore converted the boilers in the larger establishments so that they generated electricity. It had mini-CHP facilities within its sheltered housing developments.
As the authority was building some affordable houses around those developments, it piped them into the same system. That proved to be most efficient. It was able to supply electricity to people at lp per unit less than that provided by the National Grid. The heating was also cheaper than it would otherwise have been.
The success of those developments was helped by a decision of the borough council to create a recyclable fund. One quarter of a million pounds was put into the fund to assist some of the developments and that was receded by the savings made. That £500,000 rotating fund, which continues to exist, has enabled the borough to pursue other measures.
It extended the development to the leisure complex, where there is a combination of solar heating for the water and the swimming pool, and a heat exchanger which generates cooling systems for air conditioning as required. It has installed photovoltaics and it is using fuel cell technology which converts the surplus heat generated into electricity that goes into the system. There is also a similar system in the council offices, with combined heat and power and chillers That has been extended to a nearby Holiday Inn that has recently been built.
Overall, the system illustrates extremely well how small processes pursued over time—Woking is looking at a 10 to 12-year development horizon—can generate considerable savings. There is a 41 per cent energy saving and a 60 per cent saving on carbon emissions. That example is well worth examining and pursuing by other local authorities, but time is against me and I must wind up.
7.34 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, as has been said, it is only 200 years since the Industrial Revolution, the point at which mankind began to develop philosophically, technically, politically and in population numbers. We now know that we are having an adverse influence on the atmosphere because of the philosophical knowledge base developed over the same period. We should not be too depressed that we have had such an adverse effect provided—the big "if—we have the brains and the application to apply that knowledge so that we diminish the adverse effect.
The debate, prompted by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, is most welcome. I agree with all she said about the need for international action. We have 1 per cent of the world's population and, it is true, 2 per cent of its emissions—our record is not good—but we cannot solve the problem on our own. If it is to be solved, it will take the involvement of the developed and the under-developed nations.
I welcome the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester. The Bishops Bench always has a way of making me feel inadequate and small because I always feel that perhaps I do not have the necessary dedication to good in my life. But there it is. The right reverend Prelate is most welcome.
I also welcome the statement that was published by the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser which prompted the noble Baroness. I suspect that that was published as a kite-flier because he is this week addressing the American Society for the Advancement of Science. We should welcome that. It bears out what the noble Baroness was talking about. Moreover, I am sure that he will have a sympathetic audience, but he needs to get through to the politicians. Indeed, politicians though we are, we need to get through to them. I am not yet wholly convinced that political leadership in this country is wholly appraised of the danger we are in. The pace of change that is taking place certainly frightens me.
The lion's share of the burden in trying to find solutions to the problem must, at the present time, fall on the developed world. After all, we have the facilities. But it is everyone's problem. We tend to think of it in terms of the heatwave in France last summer and milder winters than those to which we are accustomed. Predictions for some of the countries bordering the sea in south-east Asia will not be very different from the predictions for this country. They show that a one in 100 year flood event will by 2080 be a one in three year flood event. Consider that in the context of those millions of people around the world who live under threat from the ocean and we can see that we have a great problem.
Furthermore, all the economic assessments I have seen of the consequences of climate change show that the cost of trying to tackle the issue is less than the likely cost of doing nothing. The simplest way to illustrate that is simply to say that we need only one flood to go over the top of the Thames barrier, which is predicted as possible somewhat later this century, if we do not do something about it, for the immediate
998
loss to be £30 billion in London alone, without considering the adverse effect that such a high tide would have across so many of our low lying coastal areas. That is 2 per cent of present GDP, lost like blowing out a candle.
So we must tackle the issue. Although that will require international action, I return to what we can do ourselves. I have the pleasure of sitting with the Minister on the Committee considering the Energy Bill. I am not sure that the Government have really been listening to the arguments advanced about nuclear power, and so forth. With the exception of an agency to wind up nuclear power stations, nuclear power is not really the matter of the Bill. However, it is in the nature of debate that we try to widen the issues.
If we consider what has happened in this country, and the reason for the Government's complacency, it is a matter of luck. The Government are pledged to reduce CO2 emissions below the 1990 level by 20 per cent, I think, by 2010. We have a successful record, but by good fortune. It has been mentioned that the privatisation of the electricity industry led to a big surge in gas generation of electricity, which is much more CO2-efficient—30 per cent more efficient—than coal. That gave us a huge start in reducing CO2 emissions.
The second thing that has happened since 1990 is an industrial run down. Industries such as the steel industry have almost disappeared. It was the biggest electricity user in British industry. To a certain extent, that industry may have been sent abroad. That does not reduce CO2 emissions at all, but that works out well for this country's statistics.
A huge wind-generating programme is under way at present as a result of the Bill. Unfortunately, we do not yet know whether there are potential ill-effects from that, but that will not alter this country's CO2 emissions one jot because, as has been said, we are closing more nuclear power stations than we are creating wind farms, as far as I can tell.
In Committee the other day, the Minister mentioned that about 6 gigawatts were to be installed. I was not sure whether his figure was net or gross. Wind is inherently inefficient. The installed capacity and the output capacity are very different; the output capacity is only about 30 per cent of the installed capacity.
In the mean time, road transport is giving off another 250,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum; while aviation is giving off another 500,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum. We may reach our 2010 target, but if we go as on we are, we will do much worse after that. That is why I am not wholly convinced that the Government have their mind round the scale of the problem that we face.
I return to our debate on the Severn barrage, which unfortunately occurred while I was detained in hospital, and ask the Minister the question that I wanted to ask him then. The Government rightly say that, on the basis of their costings, the Severn barrage is very expensive. The costings were based on various economic regression rates established in a study first

999
undertaken at the beginning of the 1990s. I think that the figures of 15, 12 and 8 per cent were used. Even at 8 per cent, the barrage was uneconomic.
The Government reviewed all that work just a couple of years ago. However, one thing that they did not review was the economic regression rate. The Severn barrage would have a 120-year life, which is much longer than most projects. It would rely entirely on proven technology. More than that, the economic climate has totally changed in the decade since the early 1990s, when interest rates were much higher. I cannot help but wonder why the interest rate was not reviewed to calculate that economic regression rate. If it was reduced to 6 per cent, I suspect that we might get some interesting answers. However, I ask the Minister no more than that he would consider what would happen if those figures were reduced.
I have taken enough of the House's time. This has been a useful debate and I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
7.46 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I first thank the noble Baroness for initiating this debate, which has been extremely wide-ranging and informed. There is widespread recognition of the importance of this topic around the House; I am glad that we have this time to debate it. I also congratulate the right reverend Prelate on his maiden speech. The Church is never slow to tackle the major issues, and this is in many ways one of the major issues facing us all. We need to take to heart much of what he said.
To answer the noble Baroness's specific Question, I agree with the Chief Scientific Adviser. There is no doubt that climate change is one of the most—probably the most—serious challenges that the world faces. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that other challenges fade into the second order when compared with this one. That means that as politicians and leaders of opinion and action, we have a special responsibility. As several noble Lords said, politicians'timescale tends to be three years, but we must all be clear that the political and business leadership of this generation will be judged severely if it does not take a longer view of the challenges arising from climate change. We all have our responsibilities in that respect.
We all accept the basics: that the world is getting significantly warmer at a dramatic rate and that that rate is likely to increase during the course of this century. There are doubts about causes and speed, some of which I shall address later—especially those expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw—but there is great clarity about how scientists' models and actual experience suggest that the world is getting warmer and will continue to do so.
Sir David King's article in Science, which provoked the debate and which I am sure that he will reinforce in his various addresses to the American scientific community, suggests the degree to which the world will be changed if those trends continue. Just to take one example, a quarter of land species could be committed to extinction by 2050 under the middle range of the climate projections.
1000
To consider the international dimension, it is true to say that the majority of the international community recognises the importance of that challenge. The UK Government and most others have signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and a substantial number of countries have now ratified the Kyoto Protocol. At the recent conference of the parties in Milan in December, which was attended by representatives of 171 countries, there was near universal support for the Kyoto protocol. As noble Lords have said, the Kyoto Protocol is only a start, but it is an important one. If we fail to deliver Kyoto, we are failing seriously on the longer-term problems that have been put forward in this debate and more broadly.
Formally speaking, ratification of Kyoto now depends on Russia. The noble Baroness asked us to use all our methods of persuasion to try to ensure that the Russians ratify. I suspect that patience is needed, as the Russian elections are unlikely to be preceded by ratification. However, I hope and believe that, assuming that President Putin wins the election—I think that we probably can—every pressure will be put on him and he will then take steps to ensure that Russia takes a lead and recognises its own interests in ratifying the rest of the Kyoto Protocol.
In that respect, Russia is only crucial in one sense, because the United States has opted out of the process. We all recognise that that is deeply regrettable. Dave King's article indicates a grave responsibility on the Americans. The decision was deeply disappointing and presents the rest of us with a very wide range of problems. Although there are efforts, even within the current administration, to take action domestically, that action is insufficient. At best, it will slow the growth of US greenhouse gas emissions, but it will not reduce them.
We must engage with the United States on many different levels, including the field of technology. There is considerable enthusiasm in the corporate and business sector and the government in the United States to move faster to combat climate change. But we need political commitment from the United States also. The United States has only 4 per cent of the world's population but is responsible for 20 per cent of all global emissions of greenhouse gases. Its present targets, such as they are, would do nothing to reduce that proportion. The absolute amount of United States emissions is on course to increase, whereas those for the UK and Europe will diminish and, it is to be hoped, meet the Kyoto targets.
We need to use all our diplomatic influence on the United States. We must use the consecutive presidencies of the US and the UK in the G8 in 2004–05 to bring to life the energy commitments of the previous G8 in the Evian action plan. On a European level, we must use the UK presidency of the EU to ensure that, domestically within the EU and internationally with the United States, we try to make climate change central to our political objectives for that period. It is therefore vital that we use all such influence and take a leadership role. The Government are committed to doing precisely that.

1001
I wish briefly to mention the slight doubts raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, about whether the cause of global warming was primarily industrial activity and the effects of man in the past 200 years. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, and others indicated, all the scientific evidence shows that, since the industrial revolution, the process of warming has speeded up. Changes in the emissions and radioactivity of the sun may have a significant effect. However, at whatever level the sun influences our climate—it is obviously a very important factor—additional heat generated by mankind through the creation of greenhouse gases must aggravate that situation. We can and must do something about it.
The severity of the impact of global warming, which the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, also raised, may be variable. It may not be entirely predictable and in line with what every model suggests. There will be differential effects in different parts of the world. As the noble Lords, Lord Tanlaw and Lord Oxburgh, mentioned, it is important that we look at the possible effects on ocean currents, particularly, in our parochial but important case, the gulf stream. It is possible that the changes could effect significant cooling of the climate. Although most models show the likelihood of that to be relatively low in the short term, it is nevertheless one of the potential implications and uncertainties that arise from the science of global warming.
Throughout the planet, global warming determines the nature of climates, vulnerability to climatic conditions such as drought, floods and storms, and the nature of agriculture. Many noble Lords with far greater experience than me—the noble Lords, Lord Hunt, Lord Methuen, and others—referred to the need for better modelling and more work and details in that respect, with which I agree. We must engage substantially in that area, and in mitigating and offsetting action.
There is much discussion here, as elsewhere in my life at present—the Committee stage of the Energy Bill—on the role of energy policy, particularly the potential role of nuclear power. It is also important to recognise that the big issues of energy policy are matched by the importance of small issues. Those include changing consumer behaviour and adopting new energy systems—the noble Baroness and the right reverend Prelate mentioned the example of Woking. Planning small-scale or medium-scale energy entirely differently can make a big difference. The sourcing of our energy sources is an important issue. It is not true that the Government are not listening, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said; I have been listening quite a lot in Committee. I have not agreed entirely with everything, but that is a different matter.
To tackle climate change one must consider seriously the role of nuclear power—I do not deny that—on either a UK or worldwide basis. However, at present, nuclear power is neither a sustainable technology—it is a low-carbon technology—because we have not yet worked out how to deal with waste, nor is it a particularly cheap way of saving carbon. As
1002
regards tonnes of carbon saved per buck, nuclear energy remains an extremely expensive short-and long-term way of saving carbon.
Nevertheless, it is government policy and a clear part of the energy White Paper that we should keep the nuclear option open. Discussions in the Committee stage of the Energy Bill and here today about how we should keep it open—for example, the expertise and research needed—are relevant to that prospect. The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, asked whether I could stand up in three years' time and say that the UK did not need nuclear power in the medium term. I probably will be able to do that, but, then as now, I could not say that either the UK or the world will never need it. Therefore, keeping the nuclear option open is important.
The rest of the energy White Paper, some of which is dismissed slightly in this debate and those on the Energy Bill, is palpably deliverable. If we can manage to change consumer and business behaviour to double the rate of energy efficiency improvement, a substantial part of our demand for energy, and therefore our production of carbon, will have been avoided. If we can generate an equivalent amount of energy through renewables, where for the most part the technology either already exists or is within our grasp, that renewable energy will help effectively and reliably to replace some of the carbon and some of the nuclear energy in the old nuclear power stations.
I find slightly odd the attack on wind power in this House, which the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, repeated today. Any single wind source is unreliable in that wind will be intermittent, but, if a substantial amount of our power generation is through wind from different sites around these islands, it is unlikely to be intermittent. It is certainly as reliable as many fossil fuel stations that we have had in the past as regards reliance on delivery, or long-term reliance on any other form of energy, including nuclear power. Other contributions both to the sourcing and use of our energy must be made if we are to meet the targets in the Energy White Paper and our targets beyond Kyoto, from 2020 into 2050; a 20 per cent reduction to 2020 and a 50 per cent reduction of carbon use by 2050.
Other technologies will be coming on stream that will help in the short term in relation to biofuels and using biofuels in a transport component, where the use of carbon-based fuels has grown and has not been restrained as it has been in industry and the energy-producing industries. Biofuels could certainly play a significant role there. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, indicated some encouragement for that. We are shortly to consult on the Biofuels for Transport Directive, which requires higher targets for the use of biofuels in that sector. That might make a big impact.
In the longer term, in the transport sector we may be moving to both hybrid vehicles and to hydrogen vehicles in a big way. Certainly, if we do not, the contribution of transport to the continuing escalation of carbon emissions will be a real problem.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. He mentioned hydrogen. How will the

1003
hydrogen be produced? Hydrogen is produced by running electric current through water. Nuclear energy was going to be the supplier of hydrogen. How will hydrogen be made to drive our cars in the future?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, hydrogen will be made by the balance of sourcing of electricity by that stage. In the initial stages, as we move across to a hydrogen-based economy, the manufacture of hydrogen will be by the mixture of conventional and renewable sources of energy. The degree to which hydrogen will be carbon-reducing will depend to some extent on the mix of energy at the point when the hydrogen is being produced. It is certainly true that hydrogen could be produced efficiently through nuclear power. It can be produced with a relatively low level of carbon take by other forms of power as well. At the point of use, and the recycling of use, it has a nil carbon effect and therefore a great benefit to the kind of vehicles that we power by hydrogen, which at present are almost completely reliant on fossil fuels.
It is not only road transport that needs to play a role in this, but aviation, which has hitherto largely escaped the restraints on the use of fossil fuels on surface transport. Surface transport has, particularly in this country, been pretty highly taxed and has led to a reduction in use via energy efficiency and the move to more energy efficient cars and fuels. That is an important effect of fiscal intervention that is not always appreciated by the motorist but is making the situation considerably better in the long term.
No such development has taken place in the same way in relation to aviation, and nor is there a longer-term solution in the sense of alternatives to fossil-based fuels for aviation. We need to consider how to curb the growth of demand in aviation. At present, international aviation is excluded from the Kyoto calculations, but it will need to come into play before and beyond Kyoto and reduce the use of fossil fuels over the longer term. A significant step was indicated in the recent aviation White Paper, when we talked about the need for aviation to internalise its external costs in the environmental sense, and also the specific proposition that aviation should join, at least on a European basis, in the second stage of the European Emissions Trading Scheme. While there were difficulties with that, it is the immediate way forward, and one that could help aviation to make its own contribution. Otherwise, aviation will be one of the biggest contributors to global emissions in a decade or two, although it is currently a relatively small contributor.
All sections of the economy need to take a role in this. One of the most important roles is to change consumption in our homes and buildings. The Government have taken a number of steps in relation to building regulations and labelling and promotion of domestic appliances. Greater efficiencies can be obtained from that area. The recent sustainable building summit set out a number of objectives for how to deal with the construction and use of our buildings and how to deliver carbon savings. How we use our buildings will enable the consumer sector and
1004
the household sector to make contributions to the targets on climate change to offset the pressures on global warming.
A number of other questions were raised in the course of this debate. I will check Hansard to see whether there are any specifics that I need to reply to, which may well include the sudden barrage that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, sprung on me at the last moment, not entirely unexpectedly. There may be other points that deserve a reply. I thank the noble Baroness for initiating this important debate. I am sure that it is a subject to which we shall return in one guise or another in this House, as its importance is accepted by politicians of all parties and all nations.
8.6 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I warmly thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. Your Lordships who are scientists painted graphic pictures that certainly increased my understanding. Your Lordships also built on the idea that local action is important. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester introduced the important theme of global community and responsibility. I thank the Minister for his very thoughtful reply. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Business
Lord Grocott: My Lords, before we start this Second Reading debate, I want to say a brief word about timings. As the House will know, we have a target rising time of 10 o'clock. We should be able to accommodate that comfortably if noble Lords other than the openers and the winders limit their remarks to around eight minutes.

Mersey Tunnels Bill
8.8 p.m.
Lord Smith of Leigh: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill is promoted by Merseytravel, the Passenger Transport Authority (PTA) for Merseyside with a duty to operate the two tunnels linking Liverpool with Birkenhead and Wallasey. It may surprise noble Lords to know that these days Merseytravel only provides the services of operating and managing the tunnel. The PTA is composed of 18 elected councillors appointed by the five Merseyside local authorities in proportion to their size. The Bill is supported by all five local authorities, including Wirral.
The Bill seeks to amend the County of Merseyside Act 1980, which currently establishes the powers to maintain the tunnels, to collect and raise tolls and to apply tolls to meet debt repayment as well as maintaining, operating and refurbishing the tunnels. The current procedure for raising tolls requires a

1005
public inquiry, and is cumbersome and costly. In order to justify an increase, the tunnels must effectively be running at a financial deficit, which falls on the council tax payers of Merseyside to subsidise. Those arrangements surely are unacceptable.
The Bill seeks to enable the authority to raise tolls by inflation annually. Any increase above inflation would require the Secretary of State to approve the exceptional circumstances. The principle of maintaining the real value of tolls mirrors the process in the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Act 1988, which is a comparable estuary crossing. That Act was promoted by the then government.
The Bill also gives freedom to Merseytravel to apply any future surpluses to support public transport services across the county. It removes the requirement to reduce tolls when existing debts are repaid, probably around 2048–49. The final provision is the least controversial. Properties adjacent to the Kingsway Tunnel are in a legal hole because no one has the power to install noise insulation. The Bill will provide Merseytravel with such power.
Refurbishment costs on the tunnel are expected to rise. It is like all of us; we require more attention as we grow older. Investment in safety will also increase as standards have changed following horrific accidents in road tunnels across Europe. In 2002, Merseytravel commissioned a report, Eurotest 2002, and, as a result, is committed to increased expenditure on safety. A European directive on tunnel safety is anticipated during the next 12 months. Merseytravel would intend to raise safety standards in its tunnels in line with the directive.
Although the Bill did not face any hostile petitions during its consideration by another place, there was opposition from some local Members of Parliament. A number of concerns were expressed; no doubt they will be echoed in your Lordships' House tonight. I think that they focus on three issues, which I shall address in turn. First, how accountable would Merseytravel be to local people in exercising the powers under the Bill? Would it still be committed to operate the tunnels efficiently? Finally, would raising tolls be regarded as fair and equitable?
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in his instruction is concerned about accountability to local authorities. The relationship between PTAs and their constituent local authorities involves the formal process of appointment and informal checks and balances. I am most familiar with the arrangements for Greater Manchester where I chair for the local authorities in the Association of Greater Manchester Councils, which provides strategic leadership for the county and for the joint bodies.
From my contacts with colleagues in Merseyside, I know that their co-ordinating committee fulfils a similar role. For example, when Merseytravel is preparing its budget—changes to tunnel tolls would be part of that budget—it consults the local authorities. The PTAs are levying authorities. For those noble Lords who are not familiar with the intricacies of local
1006
government finance, that means that the expenditure by Merseytravel effectively is regarded as expenditure by each of the local authorities. So, in times of financial difficulties, that expenditure is in competition with education, social services and other forms of local expenditure. I assure noble Lords that local authorities take their job seriously. They have a role in scrutiny and they do it.
What if the PTA decides to ignore the instructions from the local authorities? That is when the power of appointment becomes a power of replacement. The authorities would replace members who would not obey the instructions with people who would, and I can assure noble Lords that that would happen.
The Bill will be an incentive to Merseytravel to operate even more efficiently. It is currently under best-value rules that require it to evaluate its activities to secure improvement. If anyone feels that Merseytravel is not doing that adequately, they have the option of going to the Audit Commission. However, the most recent letter from the commission states with no qualifications that Merseytravel is operating most satisfactorily.
But the further incentive the Bill will give to Merseytravel is the ability to apply surpluses to its primary purpose of improving public transport across Merseyside. That will make Merseytravel even keener to be efficient about the tunnels because it can use the money to do what it wants to do.
I turn finally to the difficult question: is it fair and equitable for tunnel users to contribute through tolls, as provided for in the Bill? I believe that it is fair. The tunnels provide a clear and direct benefit to those who use them. Users comprise just 3 per cent of the people of Merseyside. The alternative form of funding available to Merseytravel is through the council tax. Why should the overwhelming majority of Merseyside council tax payers subsidise the few who use the tunnel? Further, if the real value of tolls falls and, as is likely, other transport costs rise, the relative attractiveness of using the tunnels against public transport changes and the tunnels become more attractive. But Merseytravel is under an obligation to follow the Government policy of encouraging greater use of public transport, therefore tolls ought to rise in line with inflation to avoid the possibility of using the car through the tunnels becoming more attractive. In any case, during the rush hours, the tunnels are operating at pretty much capacity and there is no space for more cars.
I look forward to the contributions to the debate. I hope that the Bill will receive a Second Reading, thus allowing the Select Committee to do its work unencumbered. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Smith of Leigh.)
8.15 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, for so clearly introducing the Bill. However, when he referred to its passage through the other place, he might have added

1007
a few words to give noble Lords a feel for the hostility which it seems to have engendered. On looking at the provisions, it is difficult to imagine the extent of that hostility, but at Third Reading on 29 October last year, the Labour Member for Wirral South, Ben Chapman, seemed almost to euphemise when he said:
"It is a bad Bill, which is unfair, unwarranted and unwanted".—[Official Report, Commons, 29/10/03; col. 399.]
The speeches of Bob Wareing, a Liverpool Labour MP. Andrew Miller, Stephen Hesford and Frank Field made one realise that there was a significant level of opposition to the Bill.
Then, surprisingly, the person asked to chair the private Bill proceedings. Bob Spink, the Conservative Member for Castle Point, said:
"Except for the noise reduction measures, the Bill is thoroughly bad … I hope that the Lords will severely amend it or throw it out".—Official Report, Commons, 29/10/03; cols. 396–397.]
Mr Chope, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, said:
"The Bill is not fair … it runs contrary to the results of a consultation process".—[Official Report, Commons, 29/10/03; col. 404.]
Noble Lords will forgive me if I pause for a moment to say "Phew". What is it about the Bill that has given rise to such strong feelings, ones which I know are shared by a number of noble Lords? I have therefore put forward an instruction to which I shall allude, in the main because I understand that it exempts me from the time restriction. I shall seek to refer to it so that, later in the proceedings when moving it after the debate on Second Reading, I may be brief and to the point.
I turn to the history. There are three road tunnels known as the Mersey Tunnels, the oldest of which was completed in 1934. It has four lanes and links Liverpool with Birkenhead on the Wirral peninsula. The others comprise a pair of two-lane tunnels opened in 1971. They run from Liverpool to Wallasey on the Wirral peninsula. Those tunnels are in fact a continuation of the M53.
To understand the strong feelings that have been engendered, it is necessary to go back as far as I can to the days when I was a little boy being driven through the tunnels. In the little green booths at the mouth of the Liverpool tunnel, one or two of which are still preserved to this day, the toll collector would say to every young child entering the tunnel, "Don't worry, young man. When you grow up, there will be no tolls". This was a commitment made at the time and expressed by all the tunnel collectors. It remains a vivid memory.
The period over which tolls could be collected was limited. The limit was initially set at 20 years, then increased to 25, and finally, a 1933 Act set a maximum of 40 years. Because of the popularity of the tunnels, it eventually became necessary to have a second and third road tunnel. Those tunnels—the twin tunnels to Wallasey—were authorised in a 1965 Act. At that point, Wallasey Corporation joined Birkenhead and Liverpool to run the tunnels. Following the completion of the Wallasey tunnels in 1971, the tunnels started to make substantial losses, and things started to go wrong.
1008
I hope that I have been able to set in historical context the reason why there are such strong feelings. After the period when the tunnels made losses, the debt built up significantly. It was always agreed by tunnel users and everyone else that the primary purpose of the tolls after the necessary administration costs would be to repay the debt. Slowly but surely over the years considerable progress has been made in repaying that debt.
The noble Lord did not mention an earlier Bill produced in 1999, which was withdrawn the following year. A consultation exercise was entered into by Merseytravel. I have the results of that consultation, which give us a feel of why people feel so strongly about the Bill. There was a question:
"Should the Mersey Tunnel toll levels be index linked with inflation?"
Generally, there was a 50:50 attitude towards that. No doubt that will require closer scrutiny in the coming weeks, but 47 percent said, "No", and 45 percent said, "Yes". When the question was put to public consultation:
"Should the requirement to reduce tolls when the tunnel's debt is paid off be removed?"
Seventeen per cent said, "Yes", and 71 per cent said, "No". The third question:
"Should surplus toll income be used to cross-subsidise and improve local public transport services benefiting the wider Merseyside community?"
Twenty-three per cent said, "Yes", and 67 per cent said, "No".
On the fourth point about the necessity to have insulation powers to finance noise insulation work in adjoining properties around Wallasey, there was a general view that that should be done. Indeed, there were questions about why it should not have been done already.
When those who were in favour of the tolls being index linked were asked why, they said because it meant that the tunnel's debt would be repaid quicker. The theme that has always been present with the tunnel tolls, which was repaying the debt, was seen as important, and those who were consulted said that that would hasten the point at which tolls could be reduced.
One of our local universities, the Liverpool chamber of commerce and the Liverpool Stores committee all supported the index linking of tolls, but opposed using surplus toll income to cross-subsidise other local public transport facilities. They and the three national motoring organisations all favoured lowering tolls when the tunnel debts were paid off.
My instruction to look at the detail asks at point (a) whether it is necessary at a time when the tolls are to be index linked to retain a power for the Secretary of State to increase tolls by more than inflation. I hope that the committee will consider that two-pronged

1009
approach, and then decide whether both powers are necessary, or whether one would be preferable. The second part of the instruction asks in paragraph (b)
"whether the provisions of the bill provide an adequate mechanism for taking into account the views of the five district councils … in respect of:

(i) increases in tolls;

(ii) the use of surplus tunnel toll income"—

to cross-subsidise, and—

(iii) the desirability of repaying the existing debt".

To summarise, there are very strong views held locally. Indeed, Liverpool has just captured the competition to become the European city of culture in 2008. I know how strongly local people feel, led by Esther McVeigh, that in 2008 there should be a lifting of the tunnel tolls to permit the free passage of cars and lorries during that very important year. I hope that the committee will turn its attention to the petition of the Mersey Tunnel Users' Association and to the need to ensure that the five district councils are properly consulted. The debt has now reduced from 140 million to 98.7 million. Therefore, with the tunnels now in surplus, as they have been since 1992, there is a firm belief that at last we shall see real inroads made into that crippling debt. One person has estimated that the tolls have already raised £500 million, and it is sad that we still have a debt of £98.7 million.
When the committee comes to consider the Bill, I hope that it will take into account all these points. I believe that it is right for me to give notice that if the Bill is not substantially amended, there may well be grounds for your Lordships to reject it at Third Reading, but I do not seek to oppose it at Second Reading today.
8.27 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I am not a resident of the Merseytravel area and have no personal knowledge of it. However, I am interested in major infrastructure issues.
In Schedule 1, paragraph 3(a) to 3(e), the Bill seeks to reorganise the future income and expenditure attributable to the three tunnels. It is completely understandable that Merseytravel should wish to fulfil three of the five objectives that are laid down in sub-paragraphs (a) to (e): first, the payment of day to day operating costs and the indexation of the tolls; secondly, the repayment of the costs of financing the tunnels; and, thirdly, the making of payments into a reserve fund to deal with upgrades required by European and other legislation and heavy duty repairs at a future date, which are bound to be necessary with the passage of time.
Noble Lords have previously heard me comment on infrastructure matters in Norway, Scotland's neighbour. The arrival of the EU tunnel directive is most likely to reinforce in the Norwegians a further reluctance to join the EU. Their countless miles of tunnel, almost all bare rock, are unlikely to conform to EU standards, which presents a risk of ever higher costs.
1010
The other two objectives are more surprising. Sub-paragraph (d) would enable the PTA to cross-subsidise the passenger ferries crossing the Mersey. That suggests that the ferries are either too expensive to operate at an economic fare or that there is a desire to charge a less than economic fare, presumably with the purpose of encouraging more people to use those passenger ferries. It is in relation to that issue—a deliberate attempt to reduce the number of vehicles using the tunnels—that we may find a form of congestion charging.
As a non-resident, I am concerned about two matters. First, if I am right about boosting ferry traffic, will there be sufficient parking facilities in the vicinity of the slipways for more cars. Secondly, there will undoubtedly be considerable local disappointment over the abandonment of the promise eventually to reduce the tolls when the original capital debt is deemed to have been repaid. I suspect that the plan to cross-subsidise the ferries or to contribute to the implementation of local transport plans will be unpopular with tunnel users. There is a need to be up-front about the tolls being a form of congestion charge. That would at least make it clear that there is a policy of reducing road traffic into Liverpool.
The other objective, to be able to make grants for noise insulation work in Wallasey, will, no doubt, be popular with those who live adjacent to the approach road, even after all this time of slightly more than 30 years. How this will be viewed by everyone else is to be imagined.
Some will view the abandonment of the promised reduction as a complete betrayal. However, I strongly suspect that the increased running costs of the tunnels, their upgrade and their future repair provision into a reserve fund would have wiped out any real reduction in toll.
When considering the tunnels, I cast my mind back across the North Sea to Norway. Noble Lords will be aware that the Norwegians have become great tunnellers ever since they decided to abandon ships as their first line of transport and to develop a road network in the coastal areas. Tunnel charges are usually 10 or 15 kroner—that is, 90p to 125p—except when a tunnel is new. I recall paying 75 kroner—about 6—to go through the tunnel from Stavanger to Rennesoy on the challenging new highway between Stavanger and Bergen. I learnt at my tourist destination that the 75 kroner toll was expected to reduce to the normal 10 or 15 kroner "when the tunnel was paid for". Given the scale of the difference—a sore thumb if ever there was one—I would expect that toll to reduce in the future.
The £1.20 toll in the Mersey is not exorbitant and, in any case, matches ordinary Norwegian tolls. In Scottish terms, the Forth road bridge is 90p northbound only; and the Skye bridge is a disgraceful £4.70 one way.
I believe that the Bill should receive a Second Reading, preferably without an instruction.
8.32 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, like the noble Earl, I, too, support the Second Reading of the Bill. I commend the way in which my noble friend Lord Smith of Leigh introduced it. I should also like to express my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, for the meeting that he convened for interested Members of the House on 28 January. I suspect that some of us had other matters on our minds that day as the attendance consisted, I am afraid, only of my noble friend Lord Harrison and myself from this House plus a number of the opponents of the Bill from the other place. There were not, unfortunately, any of the Members who spoke at Second Reading in favour of the Bill—such as George Howarth, Claire Curtis-Thomas, Dr John Pugh or any of the others who made up the very large majority that voted for the Bill when it went to a Division on 9 July 2002.
The only interest I have to declare in the debate—it is a wholly unremunerated one—is that I am an honorary vice-president of Transport 2000, the national environmental body which seeks answers to transport problems and promotes solutions which respect the needs of people and the environment. Transport 2000 is a petitioner in support of the Bill.
I welcome the Bill for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it is wholly in accord with the principles which those of us in my party—and, indeed, in the Liberal Democrat party—have sought to adopt on congestion charging and traffic demand management. I support the idea of index-linking tolls and applying surplus revenues to fund public transport.
Thirdly, in addition to those two reasons, I believe that we need to adopt environmental policies that return streets to the people who live in them and make our towns and cities pleasant places not dominated by traffic. A further benefit of traffic demand policies is that by reducing total vehicle emissions they improve air quality. Traffic that moves smoothly spews out fewer pollutants.
All these principles were contained in the DETR's consultation paper Breaking the Logjam; they were enshrined in the Transport Act 2000 and are now being followed by the Secretary of State for Transport and by the Government as a whole. Indeed, during the time that I had the pleasure of working with my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, I remember that we spent many hours in your Lordships' House putting forward the case for local transport plans and for the need for local authorities to be able to raise some of the funds necessary to pay for those plans from local charges. The Mersey Tunnels Bill is wholly consistent with that principle and also with the approach adopted by the Government towards the Dartford crossings.
As my noble friend Lord Smith explained very clearly, it is evident that the financial structure of the Mersey tunnels has been manifestly unjust to residents of the city of Liverpool and to the council tax payers in the other districts that make up the Merseyside PTA. For decades, whenever the tunnel's finances have fallen into deficit, the 97 per cent of Merseysiders
1012
in those five boroughs who do not use the tunnels—an extraordinary statistic—have found themselves subsidising the 3 per cent of their fellow council tax payers who do. That injustice is compounded by the fact that 90 per cent of journeys through the tunnels are made by private cars, yet as many of your Lordships will know, car ownership across Merseyside is relatively low due to the widespread deprivation in the conurbation.
The use of local authority funds to bail out the tunnels in the past has thus been a regressive form of taxation. However, at least it can be said that the 3 per cent of local residents who use the tunnels have made some contribution through the rates or council tax. That cannot be said of motorists entering Merseyside from Cheshire, Lancashire, North Wales or further afield. They contribute nothing to the tunnels through local taxes. It is right and proper that the possibility of council tax payers subsidising the tunnels in the future should now be removed.
In rectifying these injustices, the Bill that we are considering tonight also creates the opportunity to bring two further public benefits. First, the proposed indexation of tolls is a demand management tool consistent with the principles of the Transport Act 2000. It would assist in attempting to unclog the congestion in the streets of Liverpool city centre caused by the unrestrained growth of road traffic. The second additional benefit of the Bill is that it allows for the use of surpluses to assist in the delivery of a local transport plan at some point in the future when indexation has enabled the fabric of the tunnels to be improved, the safety requirements to be met. safety standards to be increased, and the soundproofing of local residents' houses to be carried out.
Merseytravel's local transport plan has been widely-praised as one of the very best in the country and has brought benefits to all modes of transport. Those transport modes include ferry, bus and rail services across the Mersey, which provide alternatives to driving through the tunnels. It is interesting that the Government are now reviewing whether the Merseyrail model can be copied elsewhere in the country. The Merseyrail Electrics network is particularly important for residents on the Wirral side of the river. It provides them with direct access to the heart of Liverpool for work, shopping or leisure without the need to drive and find a parking space in the city. Being further able to enhance the rail system for the Wirral through the LTP with surplus funds from the tunnels is vital for the long-term success of Merseyside. That is why I commend Merseytravel for its initiative in linking the services from the tunnels to the LTP by means of this Bill.
We have heard, and I suspect that we may hear from others in this debate, that the Bill imposes an unfair burden on motorists. However, the effect of indexation of the tolls can hardly be described as punitive. The 10p per trip toll increase every three years, amounting to £1 per week for someone crossing the river every working day, will not seriously damage the pockets of commuters. Nor can anyone seriously claim that it will adversely affect the local economy

1013
Should there be any prospect of economic disadvantage, the Merseyside PTA—a body made up of elected councillors from five districts—will be able to use its discretion not to increase tolls in exactly the same way as it did in 1992 when it had the authority from the Government to double tolls from 60p to £1.20. The authority then held the toll down to £1 because of the condition of the local authority.
It seems to me that the opponents of the Bill wish to immunise car drivers from the effects of inflation and from the small toll increases which the Bill proposes. But what about bus, rail and ferry fares? Each one of these rises in line with the RPI. In the case of buses they have tended to rise by far more than the retail price index. So why should public transport users be made to pay their way, and motorists be protected? There are countless studies which show that the costs of motoring will continue to fall in the years ahead. It will be difficult everywhere to maintain the attractiveness of public transport through the price mechanism. The opponents of this Bill are trying to lead us in exactly the opposite direction by preventing the tunnels' tolls from rising in line with the RPI.
There is a great deal more that I would like to say but we are time limited and I intend to finish there. I commend the Bill wholeheartedly to your Lordships' House and hope very much that the instruction which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is proposing to move is not accepted because that will add unnecessary delays to the committee; it will interfere with the rights of local authorities in the way in which they consider these matters and is entirely unhelpful.
8.41 p.m.
Lord Dixon: My Lords, I, too, support the Bill's Second Reading, as moved by my noble friend Lord Smith of Leigh.
I begin by admitting that my experience in Merseyside is limited to the period I worked as a ships' carpenter in the Liverpool Docks in the early 1960s. The whole of my local government experience during the 1960s and 1970s was in the Tyne and Wear area; I also served for a short period on the Tyne and Wear PTA. I know only too well from my experience that local councillors are on the sharp edge of politics—every May they have to knock at doors and get votes to keep their jobs.
This Bill is promoted by, as my noble friend Lord Smith said, the Merseyside Passenger Transport Authority, made up of 18 democratically elected councillors who are nominated annually by the five Merseyside local authorities. The Bill has the support of those five local authorities, the trade unions and—judging by a glance at the report in Hansard of the debate in the other place on the Bill—the majority of MPs in the area.
The Bill was given a thorough examination in the other place from the time it was deposited in November 2001. The Bill had its Second Reading on 9 July 2002, when it was carried by 105 votes to 22. The report came from the Unopposed Bills Committee on
1014
12 March 2003 and received consideration and Third Reading on 29 November 2003. It spent almost two years in the other place.
Having a little experience, like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, of the practices in the other place, I know that the procedures gave ample scope for detailed examination by a small number of Members who were not happy with the contents of the Bill. To get a vote for a private Bill means that those in favour have to move a closure or the Bill may be talked out. This requires those supporting the Bill to have at least 100 Members pass through the Aye Lobby, usually at 10 o'clock at night. This is not an easy task on an unwhipped Bill at 10 o'clock without the help of the Government's Whips Office.
I well remember the Felixstowe Bill in the mid 1980s, as I am sure does the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, because he and I were then sitting in the other place. It was opposed by a handful of MPs from mining constituencies who were concerned that Felixstowe Harbour would be used to import coal at a time when many pits were closing. I remember my late and good comrade Lord Hardy of Wath speaking for hours about the effect on wildlife that that Bill would have. From my scant reading of this Bill in the other place I learnt more about the Queensway Tunnel than I know about the Tyne Tunnel, although I have lived a mile from the Jarrow entrance to the Tyne Tunnel. I found out, for example, that King George V opened the Queensway Tunnel on 18 July 1934. My honourable friend Bob Wareing is the only Member of the House of Commons to have walked through the tunnel in 1934, with his father who had made a donation to charity. I also found out that there are 1 million bolts in the iron lining of the tunnel and 140 miles of caulked joints. All those interesting facts surfaced during the detailed examination in the other place. That was perfectly in order.
The Bill empowers Merseytravel to increase tolls in line with RPI. However, it does not require the authority to exercise that power; it merely gives it a discretion. What is wrong with that? In one way or another, every Bill considered in this House takes power away from local authorities. This Bill will do the reverse and give local authorities the power to increase tolls in line with RPI.
The Bill also provides for noise insulation in the homes of residents near the Wirral approach roads to the Kingsway Tunnel. They have suffered from tunnel traffic noise since that tunnel was constructed in 1970.
Between 1988 and 1992 the tunnel had a deficit which was made the subject of a precept paid by local tax payers in the five district councils. Noble Lords have already referred to that twice. Why should the people in the area have to subsidise people outside the area who use the tunnel? The statistics mentioned by my noble friend show that only 3 per cent of those who use the tunnel reside in the area. So 97 per cent of tunnel users live outside the area but are subsidised by those who live there.

1015
I support the Bill also because it is not a privatisation Bill. In fact, the preamble states that the authority has resolved that it wishes the tunnels to remain in public ownership.
The Bill was examined thoroughly in the other place. I hope that it has a speedy passage through this place. I support the Bill and hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will not press his instruction.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I should first declare an interest. I live near Chester and have business interests in Liverpool, so I use the tunnel fairly frequently. However, that does not stop me from accepting that the rates have to increase. I am very happy to accept the Bill's proposal that the costs and tolls should be index linked. I think that that makes sense. I accept the argument that those who use the tunnels should be the ones who pay for them. However, like my noble friend Lord Hunt, I was brought up to believe that one day the tunnel would be free. I should like at least to see the money paid off. So I agree with my noble friend that there should be a clear commitment that the borrowings will be paid off.
I am also concerned that we do not end up with the reverse of what the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, described as an unfair arrangement whereby those who do not use the tunnel pay for those who do, so that those who use it and pay the increased costs end up paying for other matters over which they have no control. People in my part of Cheshire are concerned about those issues—that costs will continue to increase although all the debts are paid off, and yet they have to contribute towards issues that are of no benefit to them but to the benefit of others who are paying nothing at all.
I think that those two issues need to be examined. I am concerned about the extra powers being given to the Secretary of State to deal with matters of which we are unaware. I do not see why the Bill has to give definite increases and powers to Merseytravel and potential powers to the Secretary of State to do other things of which we have no indication. So although I support the main thrust of the Bill, I support my noble friend's Motion that these matters should be considered by the Committee and the Committee should undertake a proper review of the issues that we have raised.
8.49 p.m.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, everyone on Merseyside knows that Gerry and the Pacemakers sang "Ferry Cross the Mersey". Few, however, know the Beatles' song about that other form of crossing, the Mersey tunnels. It is entitled, "I Feel Fined". That is because after 70 years and after paying 500 million for tunnels that cost only one-tenth of that sum—and, I might add, for the privilege of crossing from one part of their own city to the other side—the people of Merseyside are fed up of paying the toll tax.
1016
The Bill before us not only fails to right that historic wrong; it abandons the promise to abolish the tolls once the historic debts have been paid off. This cannot and is not right. I declare an interest: I and my family in Chester regularly use the Mersey tunnels to visit friends and family, hospitals, art galleries, football stadiums and shops in Liverpool. I also declare an interest as a former MEP for the Mersey tunnels and the Runcorn bridge. Indeed, I waged a campaign on behalf of the good people of Widnes, who rightly objected to having their local roads clogged up by those fleeing the Mersey toll tax, itself an early and unfortunate experiment in road pricing.
All Merseysiders are dismayed, but none more so than Wirralians and those in the hinterland of West Cheshire and North Wales, who have greatest reason for, perforce, using the tunnels and who still, at the dawn of the new millennium, find themselves coughing up on broken promises. How badly timed is this proposed change. Do we really want to celebrate Liverpool's enthronement as European City of Culture in 2008 with welcoming signs on the Wirral side of the tunnel saying, "Willkommen to the toll tax"?
Secondly, the Bill proposes that the tolls should be inflation-proofed, regardless of the historic and real cost of running and maintaining the tunnels. That is irrational and unfair to toll-users. The tunnels should be treated as self-standing cost centres. Given the almost wholly predictable nature of the car flows through the tunnel, appropriate toll levels can be arrived at easily and for stable periods.
My third objection is that toll-payers should not have to fund transport projects beyond the immediate purview of the running of the tunnels; a major change brought about by the Bill. Toll-payers should most certainly not be taxed to fund entirely ungermane projects associated, say, with boosting tourism. I say that as someone who flies the flag for the tourism industry in your Lordships' House and someone who has played a modest role in obtaining Objective 1 moneys for Merseyside. Those worthy projects for transport and tourism seem ideal for European regeneration funding. Indeed, I remember fondly associating with colleagues at Merseytravel to secure Euro-funding for the innovative smart buses some five years ago.
My fourth objection is to the potential for privatisation of the tunnels—the subject of the earlier withdrawn Bill—which would be facilitated by abandoning the current pledge to set the tolls free once the debt had been repaid, and by the fact that the tunnels in the Bill are turned into cash cows by the introduction of the liberty to allocate surplus moneys for other non-tunnel purposes.
That leads me to my fifth concern: the accounts. I have only recently received some information on the accounts. At first glance, it would appear that the company's finances are more than comfortable. That view is reinforced by the recent withdrawal of the application to increase tolls by 10 pence and by the fact of the accelerated debt repayment of £3 million last year.

1017
I have many questions about the accounts that I have seen, but will the Minister confirm whether the current voluntarily-produced accounts of the Mersey tunnels are specifically covered by the district auditor's opinion and certificate? I understand that they are not.
Finally, plans for a new crossing of the Mersey upriver from the tunnels will have a material effect on whether it is wise to change now along the lines proposed. For instance, we do not know whether the new crossing will be tolled. In the light of that, should we not instead pledge ourselves to fulfil earlier promises made about dispensing with the tolls, and at the same time make the running of the tunnels transparent, simple, fair, effective and efficient for the benefit of all the people of Merseyside and its hinterland, especially on the eve of Liverpool's finest hour?
8.55 p.m.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Smith is to be congratulated on his presentation of the powers contained in the Bill, and of the positive benefits that it will bring to Merseyside. I am pleased to speak in favour of the Bill, which modernises an anachronistic system of financing and managing the famous Mersey tunnels. I make no apology if I repeat some comments that other noble Lords have already made. However, I shall keep my comments brief, as the Bill has been debated at length on a number of occasions in another place and was substantially unamended.
I see four key benefits to the Bill. First, the powers sought by Merseytravel will remove a major burden currently placed on Merseyside's council tax payers. Under the existing legislation, it is they who must meet any deficits that arise as a result of the operation and maintenance of the tunnels. While that has not happened recently, it could easily do so again under existing legislation. Indeed, people in Merseyside still talk of the £28 million deficit that had to be funded in that way between 1988 and 1992. Furthermore, Merseytravel, the body responsible for managing the tunnels, can manage its finances with only a limited degree of forward planning. The Bill rectifies that.
Secondly, the Bill will ensure continuing investment in the tunnels' infrastructure and the potential to invest any surpluses in public transport in the region. That has to be a positive development, one which I support. Thirdly, by removing the need for a public inquiry every time that there is an application for an inflationary toll rise, the Bill will remove red tape and place decisions in the hands of those with responsibility for implementing them. That also has to be a welcome step forward.
Finally, I am entirely convinced of the need for the Bill in terms of enabling Merseytravel to undertake noise insulation works to the 200 or so properties situated at the Wallasey end of what is known locally as the Queensway tunnel. Being asthmatic, I know of the dangers that car fumes pose to people's health, as well as the associated health risks from the dust
1018
particles that will pollute their homes. I can therefore fully empathise and sympathise with the dangers that the families living in those properties have experienced on a daily basis for many years. As well as those dangers, there are the added difficulties of the constant noise impacting on their privacy and comfort. The sooner the Bill is enacted, the quicker Merseytravel can commence that work and mitigate the dangers to the health and quality of life of those long-suffering residents.
In closing, I would like to comment briefly on the instruction tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Unlike him, I am satisfied that Merseytravel is the proper body to make decisions about the finances of a major piece of transport infrastructure which it is ultimately responsible for managing. The instruction seems to be an attempt to further the Conservative Party's campaign against PTAs and I consider that it could well place an intolerable burden on the Select Committee by inappropriately widening its remit. Existing laws, particularly on best value, ensure that the tunnels undertaking is run efficiently, economically and with proper consultation with stakeholders. I am not persuaded by those who voice arguments to the contrary.
8.59 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Smith of Leigh on introducing the Bill. My interest is in encouraging public transport. Given that the Bill is promoted by Merseytravel, the passenger transport authority and executive for Merseyside, and with the PTA comprising 18 elected councillors who set the policies for the executive, it is about as democratic as it can be. The PTA has a high reputation around the country among transport professionals generally.
I was interested in some of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about the consultation process. I find it difficult to link the 67 per cent who said "No" to cross-subsidy with the 40 per cent of people in the Merseytravel area who, I understand, do not have access to cars. It would be odd if they did not want some of the toll money put towards public transport if they had no other means of travelling around. The most surprising statistic quoted by the noble Lord was that motorists do not want tolls. That really is a novelty. People really would like to drive around for nothing. But that is not what life is about.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and my noble friend Lord Harrison mentioned Liverpool as the 2008 City of Culture. That will be exciting and the key is not to create a toll-free gridlock—"Willkommen aus gridlock " perhaps—but a car-free environment for the period, where the really beautiful Merseyside landscape can be enjoyed without gridlock and the fear of being run over. That should be the objective and the Bill goes some way towards it.
It is a local Bill, promoted by the local PTA. That authority is made up of elected people who should be capable of deciding what is good for Merseyside's travel

1019
needs. There is nothing particularly new about the principles behind the Bill. As several noble Lords have said, the principle is consistent with the Government's policy set out in the transport White Paper and the Transport Act 2000, which is to encourage public transport and limit car use for the benefit of all. Perhaps it is the start of a 21st century solution, although we have some way to go. The principle is also similar to the legislation governing the finances of the Dartford crossing and the provisions set out in the Traffic Management Bill, currently before Parliament, which, no doubt, your Lordships will be discussing soon, relating to the use of surplus parking revenues. Just for completeness, that principle is a major part of the European Commission's White Paper on strategic links, which proposed that revenue from tolls on roads and such links should be put aside for investment and support for public transport, rail and so on.
What is wrong with cross-subsidy? The London congestion charge is wholly a cross-subsidy, because Mr Livingstone has used much of it to buy those wonderful new bendy buses that we all love so much. They are very good and I believe that bus use in London has increased by 20 per cent. As for charging for crossings—estuarial or otherwise—that happens for the Humber, the Severn, the Dartford tunnel and the Channel Tunnel. Tolls on the Channel Tunnel for a car sometimes approach £200—significantly higher than that envisaged in the Bill.
There is nothing wrong with paying a small amount to use a piece of infrastructure for one's own benefit, which, as many noble Lords have said, does not benefit 97 per cent of the population. I believe that the Bill places responsibility in the hands of local people, where it should be. We have seen the benefits of local solutions to local issues by local people in Merseyrail Electric's network, which has been the best performing railway on the UK mainland since Merseytravel took over the Strategic Rail Authority's franchising responsibilities. I am not sure it is better than the Isle of Wight railway, but I shall leave that to one side.
My noble friend Lord Faulkner mentioned that the plan was looking at vertical integration, which I might not generally like if I was wearing my rail freight hat, but is good for the area. Whether that principle will be extended to the whole network is not part of the argument. We should devolve decision-making where we can—cut out the bureaucracy and speed up the decision-making. This Bill has been around for far too long in my view.
Turning to the instruction tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I do not believe that it is necessary or appropriate. Nor do I agree that it is correct in its central assertion because the seven PTAs, which are responsible for setting public transport policy in the former metropolitan counties, are, in my view, best placed to assert the needs and views of the local population and their stakeholders. They are elected—they are the people who run it. It seems extraordinary that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, should seek to instruct the Select Committee to consider,
"whether the provisions of the bill provide an adequate mechanism for taking into account the views of the five district councils",
1020
when the promoter of the Bill is the five district councils. This looks to me like a monumental piece of navel gazing by the Select Committee. It would be boring and waste an awful lot of time for absolutely no benefit whatever.
To conclude, the Secretary of State for Transport recently said in another place:
"Local transport decisions are often best taken by the people who are providing the service and who pay for it. They can be better placed to know what is needed and how best to provide it. as well as being able to make sensible and informed decisions".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/1/04; col. 1076.]
This seems to me to be absolutely sound, and having met many transport professionals throughout the country, including Merseytravel's chief executive, Neil Scales, I am confident that the Secretary of State is quite right, certainly in this case.
I commend the Bill to the House. It should be allowed to follow its course without the instruction from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
9.6 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am most grateful to your Lordships for allowing me to speak briefly in the gap. I had not expected to be here this evening and therefore had not put my name down to speak.
It seems appropriate to be considering this issue on a day when Eurotunnel announced that without changes to simplify its structure and more flexibility to help it repay its debts, its future would not be viable. I appreciate that here we are talking about tunnels for cars and not the uses made of Eurotunnel.
As a former Member of the European Parliament for Liverpool I was a great user of the tunnel. Perhaps I may be allowed a personal reflection. My mother often talked of her excitement at going through the first Mersey tunnel before it was officially opened. So there are a number of reasons why I believe the tunnel needs to be put on a more secure footing.
As a great supporter of Liverpool's status as a future European capital of culture, I welcome the suggestion, which was raised by my noble friend Lord Hunt, that the tolls should be lifted during that period. What therefore will happen in 2007, when Liverpool will be celebrating the 600th anniversary of its charter?
Many of the arguments advanced in favour of the Bill were persuasive, particularly those of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, but no one has answered the points raised by my noble friend Lord Hunt about the failure to take into account the results of the public consultation. On that basis, and on the others he advanced so clearly, I support him in his request for an instruction to the Select Committee.
It seems to me that the processes of which we can take advantage in Parliament should be thoroughly used in order to meet the concerns which have been expressed not only as shown by the results of the public consultation but also as expressed most vehemently in another place. I see no reason why the use of the instruction should delay proceedings. It simply

1021
underlines the fact that we in this House give a thorough examination to all the legislation that comes before us, whether public or private.
9.9 p.m.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I offer my wholehearted support for the Bill and in doing so declare interests as the chair of the Local Government Association's transport executive and as a member of the Commission for Integrated Transport. Having offered to take on the job of winding-up on what I thought would be a quick and easy debate on a Bill held late at night, I realise that I rushed in where angels fear to tread.
Nevertheless, having considered it in detail, I remain of the view that this a sensible piece of private legislation, which arrives in your Lordships' House in the unusual state of having been scrutinised by another place. That happens all too rarely these days. The Bill is now in its third parliamentary Session. I am dismayed that it has taken so long to reach us. Someone from another planet would wonder why on earth it would take so long to approve something that is in essence entirely in conformity with government policy, as the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Faulkner of Worcester, suggested.
I support the Bill because it will allow its promoter to correct a number of fundamental flaws in the legislation that governs the management of the Mersey tunnels with which it has now been struggling for some time. Probably the most glaring example of those flaws is that the tunnels are essentially deficit-driven. The Mersey tunnels must be making a loss before any adjustment can be made to the toll.
As we have heard, in those circumstances it is the council tax payers of Merseyside who are required to make up that deficit, as happened not too long ago. As the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, said, only 3 per cent of the local populace use the tunnel. I am sure that noble Lords would agree that requiring taxpayers as a whole to meet the debts of a service that is not used by the vast majority of them is not an equitable approach to public finances. In fact, many of them probably do not even own cars, which must make it all the more sickening for them. The Bill would remove that irregularity and enable Merseytravel to place the tunnels' finances on a sound economic footing, removing local taxpayers from that misplaced financial liability.
Also, under existing arrangements, proposed adjustments to the tolls must be referred to the Secretary of State, no matter how modest those increases may be. The Secretary of State almost always decides that there needs to be a public inquiry—in fact, every time Merseytravel has sought such an increase, there has been a public inquiry and the Secretary of State has approved the toll rise. That seems a disproportionate response to the scale of the problem.
That all adds to the delay. Historically, there has been about 22 months between application and approval. During that time, debts can accrue and the
1022
public inquiry causes considerable costs. That system inhibits Merseytravel's ability to look forward rather than back and plan investment for the tunnels' structures and operating systems.
The Bill removes the need for Merseytravel to seek the Secretary of State's approval for increases in line with the retail price index. To put that into context, I am told that in 1992, the toll was £1; it is now £1.20. An RPI increase would be approximately 10p every three years for a car. Do we really need the Secretary of State's approval and a public inquiry for such rises? I think not. To respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, who referred to visitors from Europe, most visitors from Europe would find the idea of paying a £ 1.20 toll perfectly normal, because they do so all the time all over Europe.
Having said all that, the most important and controversial provision in the Bill is that to allow surplus funds to be invested in public transport on Merseyside. That will enable public transport to be delivered more quickly; for that reason, we should support it. It is entirely in line with proposals advanced under the Transport Act 2000 for workplace charging and congestion charges. In that sense, it is entirely consistent with government policy. It seems odd that opponents of the provision seem to think that it is all right for council tax payers widely to subsidise deficits but not for surpluses to be invested across the wider area. I struggle to understand that inconsistency.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, will the good Lady, my noble colleague on the other side, reply to this question: what is her justification for requiring the 3 per cent who, it is claimed, use the tunnel to pay for those extra items that are not tunnel-related but are related to transport infrastructure in Merseyside and tourism activities?
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, to start with, I am "noble" rather than "good". Difficulties arise once we start down the road of deciding that we must itemise exactly what people use and how it gets paid for. In the end, one must come to a balance. The balance that I have reached in my mind is that, when 3 per cent of the local populace use the tunnel, it is inequitable to expect the wider population to pay for it.
As the chair of the LGA's transport executive, I have worked very closely with the PTAs. In my opinion, they deliver the only thing approaching integrated transport in this country. They deliver budgets worth many millions of pounds and comprise elected representatives from local authorities. It is extraordinary to think that we need a parliamentary procedure to look in detail at whether they have done properly the job of consultation. All the political parties now talk about localism and local decision-making. It is difficult to understand in any sense how localism comes into play in this context.
In public consultation, when people are asked whether they would like to pay more, of course they will say no. It is natural that people want to stick to the arranged proposition—that the tolls would be reduced

1023
when the debts were paid off. But time marches on. The traffic situation on our roads bears no resemblance to how it looked when those arrangements were agreed to. I say that with all deference to the boyish looks of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. When he heard those propositions as a boy, the traffic situation was quite different, as I am sure he would agree. The PTA has a duty to reflect wider issues of transport policy, and those that pertain now rather than when the legislation was originally drafted.
I support the Bill and wish it a speedy passage on to the statute book from this side of the House, although it took a long time in another place.
9.17 p.m.
Lord Luke: My Lords, several noble Lords have said that they do not know the Merseyside area very well. I can at least say that I have been through one of the tunnels—I notice that that creates surprise—but I am afraid that it was so long ago that I cannot remember which one.
This has been an interesting debate and has been sharply divided between those supporting the promoter of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, and those such as my noble friend Lord Hunt who question whether it is morally right to divert funds that are effectively being used to pay off debts incurred both in tunnel-building, maintenance and unprofitable working through the years.
In another place, supporters of the Bill broadly came from the Liverpool side of the tunnels, and those broadly against came from the Wirral. Arguments, as I have read, swayed to and fro during the four separate occasions on which the Bill was discussed during 2002 and 2003. There was clearly no thought of compromise on the part of the promoters at any time. Most of the relevant arguments have been put again tonight, and I shall not waste noble Lords' time by repeating them at such a late hour.
I wish to quote from an amendment moved by my honourable friend Christopher Chope in another place on 29 October 2003. He said that the purpose of the amendment was to delete from the Bill the provision to use tunnel income to make payment to,
"the Authority's general fund for the purpose of directly or indirectly facilitating the achievement of policies relating to public transport in its local transport plan, or for other purposes".—[Official Report, Commons, 29/10/03; col. 360.]
This sensible amendment, which was needless to say defeated, although it was supposed to be on a free vote, encapsulates the main concern about this Bill. Again, Mr Chope said in the debate at Third Reading,
"This Bill is provocative and contentious … the promoter has missed a great opportunity to try to reach a compromise".—[Official Report, Commons, 29/10/03; col. 403.]
I understand that there has been a long-standing agreement that income arising from the tolls should be used to pay off the debts, which I mentioned earlier, and that when that has been done the tolls should be lowered and just used to pay for ongoing maintenance. This Bill would seem to be about to kill off that understanding, just when the debt burden is coming down fast.
1024
This is just another anti-private motorist measure, this time promoted by the Labour-controlled local authorities in Merseyside. The way has been trenchantly indicated by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral. I hope that the Minister will support his most sensible instructions and that they will be accepted by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, as well.
9.21 p.m.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I join in congratulating my noble friend Lord Smith of Leigh on the able way in which he has put the case for the Bill. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, for providing what I can only describe as so passionate a response. I commend all those who have taken part in the debate on all sides of the House, because it has been a useful debate on issues of some importance. I have been through both the Kingsway and Queensway tunnels, but I shall not say that it gives me any special qualifications in any respect.
As noble Lords will know, it is the convention that the Government take a neutral stance on private Bills that do not contradict stated Government policy. That is the position that the Government will take this evening on this Bill. That said, the Government have stated through my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport that they have no general objections to the aims of the Bill.
The Bill includes a number of provisions. It will permit Merseytravel to increase tolls at the tunnels based on the retail price index, the RPI formula, without having to seek permission from the Secretary of State for Transport to use some of the proceeds from the toll revenues for wider transport objectives in Merseyside. That is broadly in line with the options available to local authorities through legislation that already allows them to introduce road user charging. The Government are therefore not opposed in principle to Merseyside's proposals to use some of the additional toll revenue for local transport purposes, a point that was well made by my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester concerning the whole issue of transport demand management, and my noble friend Lord Simon, who also emphasised the effectiveness and efficiency arguments that are inherent in what I said.
The Bill would permit increases to toll charges in line with the RPI. As the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, said earlier, any increase beyond the RPI would continue to be a basis of a right to object, and the Secretary of State would still have to consider any such proposition. The Government are not opposed to this principle, especially as the tunnels are owned and operated by a passenger transport authority made up from members of Merseyside's five local authorities. As such, it is already subject to clear democratic accountability. It does so in a credible way, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon, said and as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, reinforced.

1025
The Bill would give Merseytravel the ability to undertake and finance noise insulation work to properties on the Kingsway tunnel approaches to the roads on the Wirral. The Government welcome the introduction of those new powers because they understand that this is responding to a longstanding concern expressed by local residents. The power to take such a welcome step does not currently exist in legislation. My noble friend Lord Simon made that point forcefully and others have echoed it.
The key argument against this general approach is that the only proper use for the money is to repay the debt. I carefully listened to the arguments about that. With great respect to noble Lords, when the toll collectors were talking to small children in the past, they may not have provided a definitive economic analysis or plan for the whole of the future of the Merseyside transport system, let alone the tunnel. No doubt I would have been gratified—although I went through the tunnels as an adult and did not have the benefit of that discourse—on hearing it, but I do not think that it could be regarded as a serious proposition now.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, questioned the appropriateness of what he described as allowing Merseytravel, in effect, to "tax" tunnel users to fund other transport projects in Merseyside. The use of net proceeds from the toll or from any charging revenue for wider transport objectives is not unique. Matters move on. Safety demands become greater. Traffic management issues become more important. Environmental demands cannot be set aside lightly and they make new calls on all of us. I know that my noble friend Lord Harrison will see that point—at least, I hope that he will. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Luke, will as well; but from what he said, perhaps not.
The Government have already introduced similar powers within the legislation allowing for the introduction of road user charging under the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and the Transport Act 2000. In those cases, the relevant legislation states that net revenue from road user charging must be used for transport purposes. Of course, historic issues are important. I understand that. But the future is probably much more important if we are to get it right. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, was right when he referred to that issue.
While the Government generally have no objections to the aims of the Bill, in the past they expressed two areas of concern. First, the Government were conscious of the strength of local feeling about allowing the Merseyside Passenger Transport Authority (Merseytravel) to increase tolls by RPI without any check; and secondly, that some of the Bill's proposals for using revenue derived from heavy goods vehicles for purposes not related to the costs of
1026
the tunnel's construction, maintenance and operation could be in breach of EU Directive 99/62 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructure.
Amendments were made by the House of Commons' Unopposed Bills Committee, which sought to satisfy those concerns. Schedule 1 to the amended Bill now includes a new sub-paragraph (4) to the amendment of Section 91 of the County of Merseyside Act 1980, which, for brevity, I shall refer to as the 1980 Act. The new sub-paragraph obliges Merseytravel to ensure that toll revenue used for any purpose other than the operation, maintenance and policing of the tunnels will not contravene the EU directive. It also obliges Merseytravel to apply sufficient toll revenue to ensure the safe, efficient and economic management, operation and maintenance of the tunnels before applying toll revenue for any other purpose.
The Government believe that including this sub-paragraph will satisfy the legitimate concerns about a possible breach of the EU directive. It is important to include the sub-paragraph within the Bill because of the extra powers that the Bill gives Merseytravel (unlike operators of some similar undertakings) to be able to apply toll revenue for purposes other than the operation, maintenance and policing of the tunnels.
Schedule 1 to the amended Bill also contains a new sub-paragraph (5) to the amendment of Section 91 of the 1980 Act. That new sub-paragraph places a duty on Merseytravel to consult with the people of Merseyside once all debts have been repaid on the justification for not reducing tolls and for retaining the ability to increase tolls. Surely, that has been at the heart of any of the objections made with any force today.
The Government are satisfied with the amendments because they meet the concerns that have been expressed. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, covered many other issues raised over several years and I shall not repeat those. I conclude simply by saying that the Government have no objections to the Bill going forward.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Smith of Leigh: My Lords, in replying to this interesting and wide-ranging debate, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to it. I appreciate the support of the majority of speakers and the way they developed the arguments in favour of the Bill. I appreciate in particular the attendance of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool, showing his support. I am glad of the support of the Liberal Democrat opposition and that of the Government through my noble friend Lord Triesman, who has just confirmed that they have no objections. The

1027
legislation will mean better management of the tunnels. It will promote public transport and, by doing so, will encourage a better environment in Merseyside.
In his typically robust contribution, my noble friend Lord Harrison defended tunnel users, a position perhaps not consistent with Labour's transport policy of the moment. He was concerned about the use of surplus income from the tunnels for wider purposes. However, my noble friend Lord Berkeley covered the point by explaining what happens in London and elsewhere. It is not inconsistent to regard use of the tunnels as a transport mode. Merseytravel is under an obligation to encourage more people to use public transport and to improve transport facilities, including those in the Wirral.
Seeing that I was to introduce the Bill in this House, the Mersey Tunnel Users Association contacted the local newspaper in Wigan. As a result, a typical headline appeared: "Leader upsets Scousers". I am not sure whether that is a benefit, but judging from the contributions of my noble friend Lord Harrison and the noble Lord, Lord Wade, I must have upset those from Chester as well.
I want to say how much I appreciated how the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, in moving his instruction and responding to my opening remarks, graciously agreed not to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. I, too, had boyhood experiences of travelling through the Mersey Tunnel. I was always concerned that we should emerge on the other side because I was nervous about it. However, as my noble friend Lord Triesman pointed out, the comments of toll collectors anticipating future free use of the tunnels were somewhat naive. The current operators cannot be held to that. As I said in my opening remarks, the costs of operating and maintaining the tunnels are likely to increase.
The financial accounts of Merseytravel, in particular the elements applying to the tunnel operations, show that in 2004–05 they will break even because of taking out an additional loan. There are problems.
The consultation exercise is important and all in public life must listen to the responses. However, that does not mean to say that we must follow consultation exercises slavishly. As my noble friend Lord Berkeley pointed out, it is not surprising that road users do not want to see increased tolls. Such responses are partial within any form of consultation and need to be properly interpreted.
The promoter of the Bill, Merseytravel, has sought to put forward legislation that meets the concerns of everyone. I shall comment on what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Luke, who said that it is being promoted by Labour local authorities. If he checks the record in Merseyside. I think that he will find two Labour authorities, two hung authorities and Liverpool still controlled by the Liberal Democrats. However, we are to have local elections later this year and on this side of the House we hope that that may change. For the moment, however, it is a Liberal Democrat authority.
1028
We in Greater Manchester have supported Liverpool as the future city of culture. However, my noble friend Lord Faulkner was right to ask why, in celebrating the culture of Liverpool, do we have to have the streets clogged with traffic through free use of the tunnel? That is not the way to celebrate culture in the city.
I hope that the Select Committee will be left to turn to the task in hand. No doubt the members will be informed by the contributions made by noble Lords in our debate. I hope that the noble Lord will think it unnecessary to move his somewhat restrictive instruction to the committee, thus enabling it to do its job and allowing the Bill to come back to the House for further consideration.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
9.35 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Wirralrose to move, That it be an instruction to the Select Committee to whom the Bill is committed that they should consider—

(a) whether the power of the Secretary of State to increase all or any of the tolls by order is justified; and

(b) whether the provisions of the Bill provide an adequate mechanism for taking into account the views of the five district councils on Merseyside (the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral, Liverpool, Sefton, Knowsley and St Helens) in respect of:

(i) increases in tolls;

(ii) the use of surplus tunnel toll income to improve public transport services on Merseyside; and

(iii) the desirability of repaying the existing debt on the tunnels before applying surplus toll income to other projects.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I understand from the Clerks that this is an appropriate moment for me to address the points that have been made about the instruction because I still believe it to be necessary.
First, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Dixon, that in his day the Government in the other place would have adopted a position of strict neutrality. If, however., he reads the speeches—of Labour Members, in particular—he will see that the Bill has only ever come to this place after lengthy opposition in the other place because the Government made time available for the debate to continue in government time. We always follow a better code of practice than the other place in dealing with private Bills. As one Minister admitted—perhaps inadvertently—not having followed the neutral example of the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, in this debate, the Government were whipping in favour of the Mersey Tunnels Bill. In the days of the noble Lord, that would never have happened. Of course, if it had not happened, we would not have the Bill before us now.
I wish to address one or two of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, who was the only noble Lord to address the instruction as such, although one or two others referred to it. First, the noble Lord said that the instruction would cause delay;

1029
secondly, that it would interfere with the rights of councils; and thirdly, that it was entirely unhelpful. The real problem, especially with the Birkenhead Tunnel, is that it links the two cities of Birkenhead and Liverpool. There is another crossing—a bridge at Runcorn—that is toll free. That crossing is completely free to cars, which can come and go as they please.
It is interesting that in a survey on 4 October 2002, the bridge linking Runcorn and Widnes carried exactly the same number of vehicles in a 24-hour period as the tunnels. The tunnels have eight lanes and the road bridge has four. The points made by noble Lords that there is enormous congestion and a surfeit of cars using the tunnels is only when people are going to and from work. There is huge feeling among the people in Liverpool and Birkenhead because if they go to Runcorn to cross, it is free. Let us not forget that we are talking about Merseyside, which is a deprived area, and the cars going through the tunnels are not of the greatest value. Often that is the only way in which people can get to work—especially at certain hours of the day. They also need to carry their equipment, and so on.
Let us examine and understand the strong feelings. The position is unlike other city centres, such as London. We do not have to pay a toll on the bridges or the tunnels. There has always been a strong view in Liverpool and Birkenhead that the tolls are to pay off the debt on those marvellous tunnels that take people to and from work. But the amount produced by the tolls must eventually result in the payment of their construction costs so that the tolls will fall once the debt has been repaid.
With regard to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, that it will cause delay, there is already a petition, which is why the Bill will now go to an Opposed Bill Committee. As the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, mentioned, that petition is from the Mersey Tunnel Users Association. Many of the points raised in the petition, which I am not permitted to mention in my instruction because they are already covered by the petition, will result in close scrutiny of the Bill.
I feel, and I am strongly supported by those who have spoken on this side of the argument, that the committee should consider very carefully the points that I have raised in the instruction. The first point is that there should not be two ways of raising tolls. The Bill not only allows for automatic increases in accordance with the RPI but also perpetuates the old system of having a mechanism for a public inquiry and for the Secretary of State to authorise increases over and above the rate of inflation. I hope that the committee will look at the instruction from the point of view of the five councils.
1030
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said that in many ways the instruction is not necessary because there are elected councillors. However, let us not forget that those councillors are not elected to the Mersey Passenger Transport Executive. They are voted on to the MPTE by their own respective councils. The point was made that they could be removed by the councils. I hope that noble Lords will accept that it would be far better to ask the committee to check that the views of the five councils are being carefully considered, alongside the views, as the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, pointed out, of the Mersey Passenger Transport Executive.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made the point that there should be a 2008 toll-free gridlock. As I have already demonstrated, the bridge is free. The tunnels being free as well would not create a huge gridlock. If one uses the tunnels at most times of the day, it is fairly easy to get through. The problem of congestion arises only as a result of people going to and from work first thing in the morning and in the evening. I have already demonstrated that the four lanes on the bridge are equivalent to the eight lanes of the tunnels in relation to the amount of traffic that they carry. The problem is that the congestion arises early in the morning and late at night.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. The noble Lord says that there would be no greater congestion if the use of the tunnel was free of charge. Does he not think that people now travelling on the bridge would instead go through the tunnel, thereby increasing the traffic flows?
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I agree that that may happen. However, the majority of the traffic on the Runcorn bridge would be travelling to and from work in that direction at peak hours, and those of us who are familiar with the area know that they are not people making what is a 30-minute detour from Birkenhead and Liverpool to go over Runcorn bridge and back again. I therefore do not believe that it would make a significant difference, but I have to acknowledge that the noble Lord may be right; there may be some difference. Interestingly, over the past 10 to 15 years the volume of traffic has gone neither up nor down. The total number of vehicles was 25.1 million in 1995 and 25.2 million in 2001–02.
If any noble Lord wants to make any further comment on my instruction, I shall be happy to give way. However, I hope that when noble Lords vote on the instruction, they will see it as a mechanism for highlighting to the committee the points of concern.
I know that the committee will carefully read Hansard and consider some of the points. By stressing them in the way that I have, I hope it will give the

1031
Committee an opportunity to recognise the main areas of concern and to deal with them before the Bill comes back before your Lordships again. I beg to move.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Select Committee to whom the Bill is committed that it should consider—

(a) whether the power of the Secretary of State to increase all or any of the tolls by order is justified; and

(b) whether the provisions of the Bill provide an adequate mechanism for taking into account the views of the five district councils on Merseyside (the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral, Liverpool, Sefton, Knowsley and St Helens) in respect of:

(i) increases in tolls;

(ii) the use of surplus tunnel toll income to improve public transport services on Merseyside; and

(iii) the desirability of repaying the existing debt on the tunnels before applying surplus toll income to other projects.—(Lord Hunt of Wirral.)

9.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 26; Not-Contents, 27.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Jones, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Luke, L.

Attlee, E.

Lyell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Montrose, D.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Noakes, B.

Fookes, B.

Northesk, E.

Fowler, L.

Seccombe, B.

Harrison, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Skelmersdale, L.

Hooper, B.

Waddington. L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L. [Teller]

Inge, L.

Wilcox, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Liverpool, Bp.

Berkeley, L.

McNally, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Pendry, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Rennard, L. [Teller]

Dixon, L.

Roper, L.

Eatwell, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L. [Teller]

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Simon, V.

Gale, B.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Haskel, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Walmsley, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Whitty, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
House adjourned at five minutes before ten o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

  Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [H.L.]
  (Sixth Day)
  Monday, 9 February 2004.
  The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
  [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Carter) in the Chair.]
  Clause 25 [Grants for assisting victims, witnesses etc]:
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 101B:
  Page 14, line 7, at end insert—
  "( ) The Secretary of State may exempt victims of domestic violence and their dependants who are subject to immigration control from the restriction on public funds to enable them to access emergency accommodation and living costs, and may recover such funds from the sponsor (as defined by section 113 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999) of the victim."
  The noble Lord said: I welcome the fact that in the immigration rules there is already recognition of the problem of domestic violence. However, it is my contention that that recognition is somewhat limited, and these two amendments are intended to broaden the scope of the provision. I am enormously grateful to a number of organisations that support the thrust of the amendments, particularly the Southall Black Sisters, which has been extremely helpful in giving me information and background data. Other organisations which support the amendments are Women's Aid, Imkaan and Amnesty International UK.
  It is my wish that the domestic violence immigration rule, which currently allows some women, subject to immigration control and domestic violence, indefinite leave to stay in the UK, should be extended to all women in that position. I also propose that the "no recourse to public funds" rule be reformed, so that all victims of domestic violence are entitled to the financial support and safe accommodation they require to leave an abusive relationship, irrespective of their immigration status.
  Women who do not have full immigration status are in an appallingly vulnerable position if subjected to domestic violence. I have some examples which I could give later if that is helpful. Secondly, even if they are secure in this country, they are invariably in a destitute situation because they cannot have recourse to public funds. That means that they may have to return to the man who subjected them to violence or leave the country which, in some circumstances, can be extremely difficult for them. In either event, the man who subjected the woman to violence gets away with it.
  GC 456
  We are talking of violence committed in the UK, and it is my contention that the deficiencies in the law which the amendments are intended to remedy allow activity that may be criminal to go unpunished or may deny the victim any civil remedy.
  Let me spell this out in a little more detail. What sort of situation are we talking about? The one that is at present covered by the immigration rules concerns spouses and unmarried partners of persons with British citizenship or with indefinite leave to remain. That leaves a number of other categories—for example, women who may be regarded as overstayers, possibly for technical reasons, and women who have leave to enter or remain in the UK as the fiancee of a person with British citizenship or with indefinite leave to remain. There may be women who have leave to enter or remain in the UK in a variety of capacities— as visitors, students and workers—or who have temporary admission as asylum seekers. There may be women who have leave to enter or remain in the UK. dependent on their remaining in a relationship with a partner, spouse or relative who also has limited leave to enter or remain in the UK—for example, as a student or worker—or who has temporary admission in the UK as an asylum seeker. There may also be people in other situations.
  It may be asked what evidence there is that anybody is suffering from domestic violence. I believe that that evidence is easier to demonstrate than in some other cases where people apply to enter the UK. It is even more straightforward than the case of asylum seekers. What sort of evidence might there be to show that we are not opening the doors to vexatious claims? For example, there may be abusers who have court orders and convictions. There may be police cautions; there may be police prosecutions; there may be court hearings. There may, indeed, be other acceptable evidence of domestic violence—for example, a medical report from a hospital doctor or a letter from a family practitioner. The perpetrator himself may have given an undertaking to the court that he will not approach the applicant who is the victim of the violence. There may be a police report confirming attendance at the home of the applicant, or a letter from a social services department confirming its involvement in connection with domestic violence, or a letter of support or report from a women's refuge. So there are many ways in which the allegation of domestic violence can be demonstrated as having a very high probability of being accurate. We are talking about small numbers of people, but there is an important principle involved.
  It is estimated that, for all the categories that I hope will be covered by the amendments, one might be dealing with some 500 to 600 applications a year. According to the Home Office figures for the more limited situation already covered by the immigration rules, for the years 2000 to 2002, of the 119 women who applied for indefinite leave to remain under the domestic violence concession, 60 per cent were granted settlement.

  GC 457
  There is another factor that is relevant. If the provision were to apply, there is a possibility that the Government could recover moneys from sponsors of the abusers concerned. I believe that would be possible and would go some way towards dealing with the financial position.
  The Government have indicated informally that they will consider ring-fencing to cover refuge spaces for some 200 to 300 women a year. However, there is a shortfall of such spaces, particularly in black and ethnic minority refuges. Would those people be entitled to other emergency accommodation? How would they cover their living costs, food, clothing et cetera, especially if there were dependent children? The Government have said that they will fast-track applications so as to shorten the period during which an individual does not have recourse to public funds. The question then is, how fast will the fast-track application work? With the best will in the world, we are talking about a number of weeks. This is not something that can happen instantly and overnight.
  Evidence indicates that the experience of the first few days or weeks of leaving an abusive relationship will determine whether the woman feels that she has no alternative but to return to the home where the abuse took place. Women with children are especially vulnerable. Returning to an abusive relationship may be preferable to exposing children to uncertainty and destitution.
  I believe that the case for these amendments is strong. I of course realise that, whereas Amendment No. 101B is spelt out in some detail, Amendment No. 103 A is rather vaguer; it had to be to fit in with the Long Title of the Bill. It is rather vaguer in terms of the intended outcome, but I believe that I have spelt out the outcome which I consider would be desirable, and the outcome which would help a small number of women in an extremely vulnerable situation for whom, on human rights grounds, we need to do more than is being done at the moment. I beg to move.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I warmly support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. As the Committee will be aware from briefing from Southall Black Sisters—I also thank it very much for its assistance—the noble Lord's amendments had to be rather carefully crafted to come within the remit of the Bill. It is fortunate that they can be moved at this point in the Bill.
  I raised issues connected with what the noble Lord has argued at an earlier stage in the Bill, as a consequence of which the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, kindly wrote to me with a lengthy answer which I am sure she intended in all courtesy to be a full answer. She will understand that I immediately sought the advice of Southall Black Sisters to see what its response was. It might be appropriate if I put its response on the record, so that the noble Baroness can address it today, if possible, or perhaps in a further
  GC 458
  letter. It is, of course, slightly broader than the amendment but follows on from the arguments put by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. The letter states:
  "We note that Baroness Scotland states that women who are subject to the probationary period and who do not have access to public funds can get access to Supporting people funded domestic violence services 'such as refuges, and housing related support services'".
  It continues:
  "This may give the impression that such women are able to access refuge space, which"—
  it believes—
  "is not the case".
  The organisation refers to Supporting People: Guide to Accommodation and Support Options for Households Experiencing Domestic Violence, which was published in December 2002 by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. According to the group, the guide specified that,
  "the Supporting People Programme will only fund housing related support costs in relation to refuges and other emergency accommodation",
  in particular circumstances. The heads of expenditure include: "staff salaries; support and training costs; the costs of providing assistance in claiming benefits; liasing with professionals and resettling women in independent housing".
  The letter continues:
  "In relation to black and Asian women the Programme will fund: time spent on advocacy and liaison with statutory agencies; the costs of accessing interpreting services and providing translated materials; [and] support in accessing specialist counselling and other specialist services".
  It goes on to state:
  "In relation to women subject to immigration control and domestic violence the Guide states 'the Home Office is considering ways of securing funding for refuge places for women who have no recourse to public funds, without amending immigration legislation'".
  The trouble is that, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, neither the Home Office nor the ODPM has as yet provided information on how refuge spaces will be funded. Perhaps this is the first stage of debates in which the Government will start to give those answers.
  I am fully aware of course that the Government will say that they do not need legislation or that the matter can be dealt with in other Bills. The important thing is that we start the debate in earnest now.
  The group, the Southall Black Sisters, points out that the current situation is quite stark:
  "women subject to immigration control who are victims of domestic violence are not entitled to: the rent to pay for refuge spaces either by way of a grant/fund or housing benefit; [nor] to living costs including food, transport, medication and clothing".
  It states:
  "There are no government proposals on whether these women will be provided with living costs".
  I return to something the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said. He said that the number of people about whom we are concerned may be small, but in each and every case it is a serious situation in which they find

  GC 459
  themselves. I know the Minister is apprised of that and has shown sympathy to it, so I look forward to her response today.
  Baroness Walmsley: I also warmly support the amendment. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for tabling it. I also thank the Minister for sending me a copy of the letter to which the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has just referred.
  This is an important and serious issue. It applies only to a relatively small number of women, but it can mean life and death to them. It is worth noting that other jurisdictions, such as the United States and Australia, take a broader view of the help that can be given to women coping with domestic violence and immigration issues. I hope that the United Kingdom Government can move in the right direction on the issue. In fact, we need to reach a situation where all women who are subject to immigration laws and domestic violence can get the sort of help they need. The continuing restriction on public funds preserves the economic dependency of those women on their spouses, partners or relatives and prevents a significant number of women escaping from what could be serious injury and possibly death.
  Although the Minister outlined in her letter the kind of help that is available, we know that the Government's heart is in the right place on this issue. In Safety and Justice: the Government's Proposals on Domestic Violence, the Home Office acknowledges that victims are often deterred from seeking help or leaving a violent relationship because they have nowhere to go. The paper describes the availability of safe and secure accommodation as crucial and life-saving.
  Sadly, of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said, there is not enough accommodation. The Southall Black Sisters survey showed that respondent agencies dealt with 383 cases of women with immigration and domestic violence problems and no recourse to public funds during its 12-month survey. On a particular day, it dealt with 77 cases. However, the refuges that responded were able to accommodate only about one third of the women with no recourse who approached them for emergency accommodation. That is an indication of the number of women who are not able to get help as matters stand.
  Leaving the situation undealt with is a violation of the human rights of those women. Failure to extend to them the help that they need is against the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and is also against the European Convention on Human Rights. Women have the right to be protected against violence. Violence aggravates their sense of dependency, their sense of worthlessness and humiliation. That is not the way we want women who come to this country to feel about themselves in the early days of their residency here. I know that the Government want to help these women. It is just a matter of finding the right way to do it. I submit that nobody can live without cash, not even for the short time it takes for a fast-track
  GC 460
  application to be processed. Something will have to be done about it. I hope that the Minister can be encouraging to us about this when she comes to reply.
  3.45 p.m.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: I rise with some hesitation. If one looks at the amendment, it is concerned with immigration control and public funds and it relates to both asylum seekers and immigration. At the outset one has to draw a fundamental distinction between them. I agree with my noble friend Baroness Anelay of St Johns that a short debate should start in earnest now, but I have a feeling— indeed, a conviction—that it would be premature to seek to resolve this intricate and complex problem in this Bill.
  I have to hoist a danger cone, albeit that I have had contact with some of the black sisters, in a curious way because I am a little deaf and could not exactly understand what they were saying—but I got the drift of it. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, whom I greatly admire, put the drift of it. I wholly accept the spirit of his amendment and indeed the well researched details of the argument with which he supported it. However, is it right to seek to resolve this question on this Bill? There are two cases in the Times today which are bound to go to the House of Lords. We will get to the stage where we all know that the immigration legislation is a total mess and that something will have to be done to improve it. That is not wholly the fault of government; it is such a complex problem, and raises such intricate issues of human rights that it is not my wish to blame anyone.
  Looking at the matter objectively, it would, in my view, be a great mistake to seek to resolve this by nibbling at part of the problem in a Bill where the problem is a very large cake. I therefore suggest that we go on debating it because what we say may be heard and considered. What we say can only improve the situation: it cannot worsen it. I am afraid that I disagree with my noble friend Baroness Anelay of St Johns and think that it would be a great mistake to pre-empt the whole situation by nibbling at this Bill.
  Lord Dubs: Before the Minister responds, perhaps I may deal with what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said. I do not want to put words into his mouth, but he said that it is a big problem and a big issue and that we should not deal with bits and pieces but should solve every problem in one big bang. In politics, I have learnt that when one sees a problem, an injustice or an abuse of human rights, one tackles it. In issues as complex as domestic violence and immigration, it is extremely difficult to say, "Let's deal with everything in one go".
  It seems to me that this Bill clearly deals with the issue of domestic violence. A problem clearly arises in that a very small number of women who are victims of domestic violence will be missed out of what is essentially an important Bill to move forward support. Surely it is right to say, "No, we're not going to subject these women to years of more delay until someone thinks of a piece of legislation which covers absolutely

  GC 461
  all aspects of the problem". I am not even sure whether the noble Lord was referring to everything to do with asylum and immigration policy or simply everything relating to domestic violence.
  However, it seems to me that, having identified an abuse and having identified that there are victims, the right way forward is to ask, "Is there any way of dealing with it within the scope of the legislation that we have before us?". It seems to me that there is. It is a Bill about domestic violence and about remedying an appalling wrong for certain people in this country. Here, with the help of the Southall Black Sisters, we have managed clearly to identify a way forward for people who have been missed out. I submit to the Committee and to the noble Lord that it is better to move forward on the basis of solving one problem rather than saying, "It is all difficult. Let's solve all the problems in one go". It may never happen.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for what he said. Of course, I was talking about domestic violence. On that, the Court of Appeal very recently ruled that the existing system of parallel—criminal and civil—jurisdictions is wholly unsatisfactory and that a new, integrated court must be set up. An amendment to deal with that and with the interim position pending the setting up of that integrated court is tabled, admittedly in my name, but I hope to improve it slightly for the Report stage. I mention that only because it is a matter that has also affected my reluctance to go for an amendment now. Many things are going on and I do not believe that now is the time to pre-empt them in this Bill.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): I thank each noble Lord who has participated in this debate. In particular, I thank my noble friend Lord Dubs for giving me an opportunity to address some of the issues which have been alive for some time and to explain how we think this matter should be dealt with.
  I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has a point when he says that we need to keep a clear distinction between the asylum legislation and this matter. He also has a point when he says that the issue about which we have spoken so far is unlikely to be capable of being resolved within the Bill. However, I believe it to be true—I want to recognise this straight away—that victims of domestic violence who are subject to immigration control can face particular difficulties in leaving a violent relationship and seeking help. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, is absolutely right when she says that the Government are very much aware of that problem. They are exercised about it and want to do something to assist. That is why my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Dubs is so warmly expressed.
  We have made considerable progress in improving the position of domestic violence victims who do not have settled immigration status. It is important to remember that those claiming asylum will, in all probability, not have outstanding applications under the domestic violence provisions. In order to qualify
  GC 462
  under the domestic violence provisions, the person must already have valid leave to remain as a spouse and must be married to a British citizen or to someone present and settled in the United Kingdom. They are not likely to claim asylum until a domestic violence application is turned down. Most asylum seekers neither have valid leave to remain nor are married to British nationals.
  The immigration rules now make specific provision for an application to be made on the basis about which we have just been speaking—domestic violence. We have extended the types of evidence that can be used as proof of violence. Even if it is not possible for victims to produce evidence of a relevant court conviction, police caution or protection order against their spouse or partner, they can provide medical reports, letters of support from a refuge or a letter from social services, for example. The Committee will know that, in the past, there have been difficulties if there has not been an order. We have tried to address that.
  Applications made on this basis are, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, and my noble friend Lord Dubs indicated, already flagged and dealt with as a matter of priority in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. That means that, if the application is successful and indefinite leave to remain granted, the length of time without recourse to public funds is kept to a minimum. I hear what has been said to the effect that a day can seem like a long time: we have done everything that we can to make sure that that time is as short as is humanly possible. In addition, if the applicant is destitute, applications for settlement on the basis of domestic violence are exempt from the fee charged for processing such applications. That is a significant exemption, as I said in my letter. The charge for postal applications is £ 155; for personal callers, it is £250.
  We have also ensured that domestic violence victims in such circumstances can get access to housing-related support services funded through the Supporting People programme. Supporting People is a working partnership of local government, service users and support agencies. The programme offers vulnerable people the opportunity to improve their quality of life by providing a stable environment that enables greater independence. Current expenditure by the Supporting People arrangement is £54.7 million.
  I listened with great care to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns about the detail of Supporting People, particularly the matters raised by the Southall Black Sisters. I would be happy to write to the noble Baroness about them. They are detailed, and, as the noble Baroness can probably imagine, they need to be put in context. I will be happy to do that.
  We will continue to examine the best way to assist victims of domestic violence, for instance by ensuring that information is readily available about what support they can expect. We are actively considering a request for funding to cover the living expenses of women and children in such circumstances, a matter that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns,

  GC 463
  raised. However, I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment tabled by my noble friend and the noble Baronesses. We have been clear about the fact that we must protect the integrity of the immigration and benefit rules. Allowing recourse to public funds for this category would stand in marked contrast to other applications under the immigration rules. We cannot rule out the risk that any relaxation of the rules might lead to exploitation, if this were seen as a way to access public funds. If more applications of this nature were received, it could cause delay in the processing of applications. Clearly, that would not be in the interests of the real victims. I assure the Committee that we are actively considering ways in which we can assist.
  In any event, the amendment is unnecessary. I say that for the following reasons. The immigration rules already make it clear that a sponsor of a person seeking leave to enter, or a variation of leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, may be asked to give an undertaking in writing to be responsible for that person's maintenance and accommodation for the period of any leave granted, including any further variation that includes indefinite leave to remain. The relevant government department may seek to recover from the person giving such an undertaking any income support paid to meet the needs of the person in respect of whom the undertaking has been given.
  In practice, to date, that has been used mainly for sponsors of elderly and dependant relatives coming to settle in this country. I am very happy to look at the matter again but, given that we do not intend to make an exemption to the "no recourse to public funds" rule, I do not believe that it would add anything to the current system. The noble Lord raised a very interesting avenue which I am happy to pursue. However, for the reasons that I have given, we are not able to accept the amendment either.
  Nor can I accept Amendment No. 103A, for the reasons that I set out when the Committee last met. It would be unfair for victims of one particular crime type to be singled out on the face of the Bill for the commissioner's attention. I acknowledge the points made in our debate last week and recognise that because Part 1 of the Bill focuses on domestic violence, organisations and individuals with a specific interest in tackling that crime may well wish to see it written explicitly into the commissioner's role. I assured the Committee then and I assure your Lordships now that we are committed to tackling domestic violence and supporting its victims. That is why we are bringing forward specific legislation in Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill; that is why we are working across government through the inter-ministerial group and spending £84 million on a three-stage strategy to tackle domestic violence; and that is why victims of domestic violence are one of the groups highlighted in our national strategy for victims and witnesses.
  As I have said in debate previously, given the priority that we attach to tackling domestic violence and the prevalence of that crime, we expect it to be an area in which the commissioner will take a significant interest. As the commissioner has a wide range of government departments within his remit, he will be
  GC 464
  able to take a holistic view of the problems suffered by victims of domestic violence, including the particular problems faced by victims who are still subject to immigration control.
  Lastly, I gently take issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I believe that she said that the current rule is in breach of ECHR and other human rights legislation. It is not. That does not mean that I do not feel the force of her argument that we need to do all that we can to ensure that women who are put in that intolerable situation are better supported and supported, at least, in the most creative way that we can craft. I absolutely agree with her on that. I hope that with those assurances my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  4 p.m.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I was interested to hear the Minister's offer to look again at how the rules operate with regard to undertakings required of and given by sponsors. I recall that was the policy initiative coming forward when I was a member of the Social Security Advisory Committee and in the debates that ensued at that time. In effect, this is a different generation—that was some 10 or more years ago. Sadly not enough attention was given to a group of people such as those suffering from domestic violence who may benefit from the operation of these rules. It was brought forward with the object of ensuring that elderly people were properly maintained while they were in this country. I found her offer very interesting. I take her up on that offer and I would be grateful if she would look at the matter again. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will say that it is not the whole answer, but certainly it is a constructive move in the right direction.
  Baroness Walmsley: I was interested in the Minister's explanation about the resources available through Supporting People. Is she totally satisfied that sufficient resources are available for the everyday living expenses of women in this intolerable situation through the mechanisms that she described, and that there are enough safe places for them to live? If not, some women will be deterred from leaving a violent relationship. If those resources are there, on the other hand, how will the Government ensure that the information about their availability gets through to the women who need to know about them? Unless they do know about them, they will have to stay in situations that none of us in this place would want them to stay in.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We are investing a considerable amount of money in the domestic violence campaign to raise women's awareness of the facilities available to assist them. In addition, the noble Baroness—and other Members of the Committee— will know that Women's Aid has a "last resort" fund, which it has run for several years and from which its members can apply for funding to cover living expenses of women making an application for

  GC 465
  indefinite leave to remain because of domestic violence. I know that such applications have been made and are under consideration.
  The Government are aware of the difficulties but we are also aware of the need to preserve the integrity of the immigration rules. Therefore, we are seeking to find a way that is as creative as possible in which to assist those women.
  Lord Dubs: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate on the amendments, and to my noble friend the Minister for her response. I want to read and ponder her speech in some detail when I have the chance to do so, but she made a number of remarks that suggest she is sympathetic to the problem that we have been discussing, if somewhat constrained by the integrity of the immigration rules process. Nevertheless, she wants to be helpful, although she said that she believed the amendments to be unnecessary. That was the one negative aspect that I got out of her speech; the rest of it was very positive.
  The domestic violence that we are discussing may well be a criminal offence in some circumstances. The difficulty is that if we do not give protection to the women who are victims of what may be a criminal offence, we are in effect condoning criminal behaviour. We do not intend to do so, but that may be what happens in effect, because the victim may have to leave the country out of fear of further abuse or go back into the abusive relationship, which would give the abuser carte blanche to continue with it. There is a difficulty there with the criminality of the behaviour that we have been discussing.
  I appreciate that not all domestic violence is criminal. Some of it may require civil rather than criminal remedies, but the criminal element seems to me to make this situation different from others, in that we are saying that we may breach the integrity of the immigration rules if we do something. We have the integrity of criminal justice to consider as well, and the fact that criminals should not be allowed to get away with anything. I say that to my noble friend the Minister as input to her consideration of the whole issue.
  My noble friend the Minister said that we have the concept of sponsors, who must accept responsibility for the support. I suppose that it is possible that the sponsor may be the abuser, in which case it would make that more difficult. However, in any event, if the victim has gone back to the abusive relationship, whether the sponsor is the abuser or somebody else, it is very hard then to say that there needs to be further support. It is the lack of assurance of support that may well drive the woman back into the abusive relationship. That is a real difficulty.
  I appreciate that the Minister's sentiments are sympathetic and hope that she will reconsider the matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 25 agreed to.
  Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 102:
  After Clause 25, insert the following new clause—
  "AMENDMENTS TO THE YOUTH JUSTICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1999 TO EXTEND THE CATEGORY OF WITNESSES ELIGIBLE FOR ASSISTANCE ON GROUNDS OF FEAR OR DISTRESS ABOUT TESTIFYING

  (1) Section 17 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (c. 23) (witnesses eligible for assistance on grounds of fear or distress about testifying) is amended as follows.

  (2) After subsection (4) insert—

  "(4A) Where the complainant in respect of proceedings relating to any form of molestation, including violence, involving the complainant, a cohabitant, a relevant child or associated persons, is a witness in such proceedings, the witness is eligible for assistance in relation to those proceedings by virtue of this subsection unless the witness has informed the court of the witness' wish not to be so eligible by virtue of this subsection.

  (4B) For the purposes of this subsection, "cohabitant", "relevant child" and "associated persons" mean a person as defined by section 62 of the Family Law Act 1996 (c. 27) (meaning of "cohabitants", "relevant child" and "associated person") as amended by sections 2 and 3 of this Act.""

  The noble Viscount said: Amendment No. 102 stands also in the names of my noble friend Lady Anelay, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. The purpose of the amendment is to extend eligibility for special measures currently afforded to victims of sexual offences to victims of domestic violence. It amends the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 using the definition of domestic violence given in the Family Law Act 1996.
  The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act provides for vulnerable or intimidated witnesses to be eligible for special measures, such as screens or giving evidence via a TV link. That means that witnesses who may have concerns about being intimidated do not have to face the defendant. Witnesses defined as "vulnerable" include those under 17 and some adults with physical and mental disabilities.
  The definition of "intimidated" witnesses relates to fear or distress about testifying. The Act lists factors which the court should take into account in deciding whether a witness should be eligible for special measures because of intimidation. The Act includes the domestic circumstances of the witness under Section 2(c)(ii). However, for domestic violence victims, that simply means that the police and the CPS will consider whether to apply for special measures and the court will decide whether or not they should receive them.
  The system, therefore, depends on the police, the CPS and the court all recognising that the victim in each individual case is in fear or distress. We may therefore have a situation where a victim is intending to report a crime, knowing that as a result he or she may have to face the perpetrator across a courtroom. Experience shows that a court is likely to grant such measures to victims who are considering whether to report the situation to the police. That will be of small comfort to a witness faced with the often agonising

  GC 467
  decision of whether or not to report the offence in the first place. The amendment simply removes any uncertainty.
  We understand that the interdepartmental working group on vulnerable or intimated witnesses, which produced the report Speaking up for Justice in 1998, expected victims of domestic violence to be covered by these special measures.
  Victims of sexual offences already have this reassurance. They have a rebuttable presumption that they will be eligible for special measures under Section 17(4). That means that such a witness will be counted as eligible unless he or she says that he or she does not want to be.
  We believe—and we are strongly supported by Victim Support—that there should also be such a presumption for victims of domestic violence. We believe that victims will be more prepared to report an offence and to stick with the case through the court procedures if they know that they will not have to face the perpetrator across the courtroom—unless they want to. The amendment has been proposed to provide victims of domestic violence with this reassurance. I beg to move.
  Baroness Walmsley: I rise on behalf of my noble friend Lord McNally and myself to support the amendment. It is very important that we do everything we can to encourage women who are being subjected to domestic violence to report it so that the perpetrators can be dealt with. I believe that this measure would encourage some women to do that. That was the thinking behind the introduction of such special measures for the victims of sexual offences— that it would encourage them to report these offences if they did not have to face the perpetrator across a courtroom.
  We must not forget the state of mind of a woman who has been abused over many years: the fear with which she beholds the person who has committed that violence against her and the difficulty that she would have if she knew she had to face him, even across a courtroom with the protection of the law around her. It is an element that might discourage her from reporting the problem. If there is something that we can do to take that fear away, I hope that we can do it during the course of the Bill. For that reason, I support the amendment.
  4.15 p.m.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 provides for special measures, such as screens around the witness box and allowing witnesses to give evidence from outside the court room by live link, to enable vulnerable and intimidated witnesses to give their best evidence. Under the Act, it is for the court to decide whether vulnerable or intimidated witnesses should be provided with special measures to assist them in giving evidence.
  The one exception to that is where the case deals with a sexual offence—the exception to which the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, has already alluded.
  GC 468
  In such cases, access to special measures is automatic for the complainant unless he or she does not wish to be given access to special measures. This provision was made in recognition of the special nature of sexual offences and the sensitive nature of the evidence that will be given.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, spoke about the necessity for the police, the CPS and the court all to recognise that. I was very pleased to hear him acknowledge that it is likely that such measures will, indeed, be granted in relation to the kind of cases that, in the main, we would find before the court. I agree with him in that regard.
  However, two issues concern me about this amendment. First, while it is possible to be clear about what is a sexual offence, the situation relating to domestic violence is not so clear. It comes back to the request made earlier in Committee to make domestic violence an offence in itself. But there is the rub because domestic violence covers a whole spectrum of behaviour. At one end, it is pernicious and difficult but perhaps not overtly violent. However, at the heavy end, if I may express it in that way, is the controlling, oppressive behaviour, which often escalates and becomes more burdensome, more pernicious and more abusive.
  Members of the Committee know that we very much wish to catch the whole spectrum of that behaviour and that we do not wish to concentrate simply on the lesser end. We know that often the pattern, established over time, escalates. We want to nip it in the bud at its inception and not wait until it ripens into dramatic violence.
  Therefore, as I said earlier, we do not intend to create a separate offence of domestic violence. We believe that to do so would downgrade the seriousness of domestic violence by requiring the prosecution to prove a domestic relationship as well as the offence itself, and that may make it harder to prove. In addition, a single offence of domestic violence would not be specific enough to take into account the nature of the violence, which might vary from common assault to murder. That would make it difficult to ensure that the punishment matched the crime.
  It is clear that at the sharper end of the violent behaviour, special measures would be necessary but, at the very lightest end of the spectrum, it might not be automatic. Therefore, if I may respectfully say so to the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, the amendment is too widely drawn. It would catch other offences where a witness might not need special measures.
  Secondly, the evidence given in domestic violence cases may not be as sensitive as that given in sexual offences cases and, therefore, witnesses would not automatically need the additional protection that the amendment would offer. It is important to rely on the good sense of the courts when judging whether the quality of the evidence would be diminished as a result of the witness's vulnerability or intimidation and to provide the special measures as a necessity.

  GC 469
  In Safety and Justice, we asked whether continuing to implement the special measures provisions of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 provided the right level of support to vulnerable and intimidated witnesses in domestic violence cases. Respondents were more or less evenly divided as to whether access to special measures should be automatic or whether witnesses should continue to apply for them. However, respondents were clear that special measures, whether applied for or automatic, provided an important support for domestic violence victims. We shall continue to implement those provisions.
  Therefore, I do not believe that the amendment is necessary. Victims of domestic violence can already apply for access to special measures where the court believes it will ensure that they give their best evidence. I would expect courts to be sensitive to the needs of victims of domestic violence and to grant special measures where appropriate.
  We also want to continue to do all that we can—this again reflects what I said earlier in Committee—to ensure that women know what opportunities are available to them so that they receive the succour they so desperately need to enable them to have the courage to come forward, to come forward early, and to be supported through the process so that they are not discouraged from obtaining the justice they so rightly deserve.
  Viscount Bridgeman: I am grateful to the Minister for that very helpful reply, particularly as regards recognising the vulnerability of so many witnesses in these cases. We shall want to consult the agencies further on the matter but, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 103:
  After Clause 25, insert the following new clause—
  "AMENDMENTS TO THE YOUTH JUSTICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1999 RESTRICTION ON REPORTING

  (1) Section 46 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (c. 23) (power to restrict reports about certain adult witnesses in criminal proceedings) is amended as follows.

  (2) After subsection (2) insert—

  "(2A) Where the complainant in respect of proceedings relating to any form of molestation, including violence, involving the complainant, a cohabitant, a relevant child or associated persons, is a witness in such proceedings, the court may give a reporting direction unless the witness has informed the court of the witness' wish not to be so eligible by virtue of this subsection.

  (2B) A court shall give reasons if it does not give a reporting direction under subsection (2A) unless the witness has informed the court of the witness' wish not to be so eligible by virtue of this subsection.

  (2C) For the purposes of this subsection— "cohabitant", "relevant child" and "associated persons" mean a person as defined by section 62 of the Family Law Act 1996 (c. 27) (meaning of "cohabitants", "relevant child" and "associated person") as amended by sections 2 and 3 of this Act.""

  The noble Viscount said: This amendment stands in my name and in those of my noble friend Lady Anelay and the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Thomas of Gresford. I am grateful for their support.
  The purpose of the amendment is to extend the anonymity currently afforded to victims of sexual offences to victims of domestic violence. The amendment would amend the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 by using the definition of "domestic violence" given in the Family Law Act 1996. In the Government's consultation on domestic violence entitled Safety and Justice, to which the Minister referred, one proposal was to provide reporting restrictions for domestic violence cases. However, that has not been followed up and therefore Victim Support would like the idea to be reconsidered in discussing the Bill.
  Currently, victims of sexual offences and children are all afforded anonymity through reporting restrictions on cases which involve them. We support Victim Support, which believes that that should be extended to domestic violence victims. We are advised by Victim Support that victims often do not want their neighbours to know what is going on in their home and that therefore reporting restrictions would support the victim. We consider that if victims can be told early in the proceedings that they need not worry about any part of the case being reported, that will be one less anxiety for them to face. It may well be one factor in helping them to decide to take part in the case and to see it through to its conclusion.
  Currently, the court can grant reporting restrictions in cases where it believes that the quality of the witnesses' evidence will be diminished because of fear or due to the distress that they would suffer if members of the public were able to identify them. That is covered by Section 46(3) of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. The Act lists factors that the courts should take into account in making that decision, including the domestic circumstances of the witness. However, as with eligibility for special measures, which we discussed in the previous amendment, there is uncertainty in this. Decisions again depend on the police, the CPS and the courts all recognising that this is an issue. Knowing for certain that their case will not be reported will provide reassurance to victims. It will also help them in making decisions about whether to go to the police or will encourage them in seeing the case through the criminal justice process.
  In addition, more often than not, the criminal case will involve some evidence that relates to children, such as details of contact arrangements. This information is subject to reporting restrictions in the civil courts and, therefore, it is logical that it should also be restricted in domestic violence cases in criminal courts.
  We recognise that that could mean that there will also be anonymity for the defendant, as identifying him or her would also identify the victim. Parliament has already considered anonymity for the defendant in relation to sexual offences and has decided against it.

  GC 471
  The difference here is that in a domestic violence context we are proposing anonymity to safeguard the victim's interests rather than the defendant's.
  However, there may be situations where a serial perpetrator is accused of a domestic violence offence. In such cases, it may be in the interests of the current victim of that offender for the public to know of the accusation. That is because previous victims may then feel encouraged to report the offences against them, and that could provide similar-fact evidence which might strengthen the case of the current victim.
  The amendment suggests that there should be reporting restrictions unless the victim does not want them. This gives the victim the opportunity later in the proceedings to consider having the restrictions lifted if he or she thinks that there may be previous victims who might come forward and that that could support his or her case. I beg to move.
  Baroness Walmsley: I support this amendment on behalf of my noble friends Lord McNally and Lord Thomas of Gresford. This is another measure that would help to encourage victims of domestic violence to come forward in the first place. Briefing from Victim Support tells us that, in its experience, victims often do not want their neighbours to know what is going on behind the doors and the net curtains of their home. Reporting restrictions would therefore support that kind of victim.
  From personal experience, I can tell the Committee that that is so. I had a neighbour who eventually confided to me that she had been subjected to domestic violence over a very long period. I was astonished. It only came out in the end when matters came to a head. I am convinced that if that woman had had the opportunity of anonymity, she would have come forward a long time before she eventually did and she, and her children, would not have been so damaged by the domestic violence that she suffered and they observed. For those reasons I support this amendment.
  As the noble Viscount has mentioned, Parliament has already rejected anonymity for the defendant in relation to sexual offences, but I emphasise that the difference here is that we want the availability of anonymity to support and encourage the victim to come forward. I do recall that the argument against anonymity in the Sexual Offences Bill was that it would prevent serial perpetrators being detected because it would prevent other victims coming forward. This amendment has been crafted in such a way as to allow for that, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, outlined. For these reasons, I support this amendment.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I say to both the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, that their remarks amounted to— and I paraphrase—"The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 provisions are there, so can you please tell us when you are going to get on and implement them?" The language that they used was far more polite than that, of course. I will deal with that matter straightaway.
  GC 472
  Noble Lords will know that the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 provided for the courts to impose reporting restrictions about adult witnesses in criminal cases where the witness's fear or distress about publicity would otherwise prevent him giving evidence or co-operating. It set out a number of issues that the courts would have to take into account when considering whether an adult witness was eligible for protection, including the nature of the offence, the witness's personal circumstances and the behaviour of the defendant. It also allows the court not to grant reporting restrictions where it would not be in the interests of justice to do so. I hope that I will give considerable pleasure to the Committee by saying that this provision will be brought into force this spring.
  We say that the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, supported so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, is unnecessary at this stage. It seeks to create a special category in this provision for adult victims of domestic violence to give them anonymity in a similar way to victims of sexual offences.
  Your Lordships have already rightly highlighted the fact that this issue, not this precise matter, has been debated on a number of occasions. Noble Lords will remember that when we discussed this in the Safety and Justice consultation paper, we asked whether allowing victims to apply for reporting restrictions would encourage greater reporting of domestic violence or whether it was necessary to have automatic reporting restrictions. Noble Lords will remember that people were split on this issue. Some respondents felt that automatic reporting restrictions, removing public-reporting on domestic violence, would have the potential to minimise public awareness of the extent of the problem and drive the issue underground. Furthermore, the offender would not publicly be held to account for his or her criminal actions. Others felt that reporting restrictions were not the issue, and that it was fear of the abuser and the consequences of reporting the violence to the police that prevented people from reporting in the first place. The debate or argument—not only among us but among people who suffer—is very lively, and there is no unanimity of view. Therefore, we believe that enabling victims or witnesses to apply, making out a clear case for restrictions, is in the best interests both of the individual and the criminal justice system.
  The amendment deals with a provision that has not yet been implemented or tested in the courts. As I have said, we hope that it will be introduced in the spring, when we shall have an opportunity to test it and see how it works. The provision has been carefully drawn to make clear what criteria the courts should take into account. If it turns out that the courts do not use the provision to protect anonymity in appropriate cases, I suggest that that would be the time when the amendment would be appropriate.
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: Does my noble friend agree that in certain circumstances, armed by the powers of the

  GC 473
  court in any event, publicity can be a very useful factor? I have noted that myself as a practising solicitor. Would she also agree that the defendant in such cases can sometimes ensure—
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I understand my noble friend's point. He is right in saying that there are cases in which publicity can be very useful and helpful. That is why we have kept the balance as it is. We hope that, once the provisions are implemented, we shall be better able to judge whether further or other adaptation is necessary. I do not balk at being kicked very gently into saying when the provisions are going to be introduced, because I know that a number of interested parties have been very anxious about the implementation date. This is an entirely appropriate opportunity for me to give the Committee what I hope is very good news.
  Viscount Bridgeman: I am most grateful for the Minister's assurance. We shall certainly not kick her, but we shall watch, possibly together, the operation of the new provisions. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 103 A not moved.]
  Clause 26 [Amendments and repeals]:
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 104:
  Page 14, line 12, leave out "enactments mentioned in Schedule 5 are repealed" and insert "provisions mentioned in Schedule 5 are repealed or revoked"
  The noble Baroness said: The amendments in this group deal with the transitional and transitory provisions. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has raised issues in relation to Northern Ireland and has said that these matters are ones that she and her colleagues wish to consider further. Therefore, unless she indicates to me that this would be an appropriate point, I am minded to withdraw the amendments and to bring them back on Report, when the noble Baroness has had the opportunity to consider the position. We can then have a proper debate. If, in the interim between now and Report, the noble Baroness finds that there are issues upon which we can agree, I shall be most grateful to receive any such indication.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 26 agreed to.
  Schedule 4 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
  [Amendment No. 105 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 105A:
  Page 23, line 35, at end insert—
  "(3B) The court shall take into account the wishes of the sufferer when deciding whether or not to accept an undertaking, and nothing in this subsection will prevent the court from accepting an undertaking in a case where the sufferer particularly wishes the court to do so.""
  The noble Baroness said: I tabled the amendment as a result of briefing by the Solicitors' Family Law Association. The association points out that the experience of family lawyers working with sufferers of domestic abuse shows that many sufferers would not wish to criminalise the perpetrator. Their sole wish is to secure protection. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, made that point earlier in our debates, at col. 229 of Grand Committee on 19 January, when we were discussing Clause 1. In the light of that, the association argues that it would be right that the individual's wishes should be taken into account by the court and that the court should be able to accept an undertaking in such cases, rather than making an order so as to avoid the implications of the new Section 42A—the criminalisation of breach of a non-molestation order.
  When Section 42A was debated on our first day in Grand Committee under Clause 1, reservations were expressed about the clause. In moving Amendment No. 7, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, at cols. 229 to 242, made a strong case for rejecting the Government's proposals for making the breach of a non-molestation order a criminal offence. He argued that the objectives could be better achieved through the civil route, and he made it clear that we would have the opportunity to return to that issue on Report. I welcome that.
  In the mean time, I felt that it was important to table the amendment so that we could debate one more aspect of the implications of Clause 1. I beg to move.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hear what the noble Baroness says. I listened carefully to the way in which the previous amendments were moved by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. However, I immediately need to say that the outcome of what is proposed, in effect, would be a "no change" rule. At the moment, we already have an ability to enforce the orders through a civil route. That has been found not to be the most ideal way of dealing with the matter. The purpose of the Bill is to try to give women better protection and the orders more teeth so that they can operate smoothly.
  We are concerned about the most appropriate protection under the Family Law Act 1996 and to ensure that the most appropriate protection is available for all victims of domestic violence. That is why we are making a breach of a non-molestation order a criminal offence in the Bill and why we are making the court consider a non-molestation order at the same time as an occupation order. We appreciate that we are doing more than we have done before. As I have said in earlier debates in Committee, we are doing that because we believe it to be necessary.
  We are conscious that in certain circumstances the victim may not wish to seek a remedy that could bring the partner or ex-partner, who may be the co-parent, into the criminal courts; it may not be the most appropriate course of action for the victim and any children. Therefore, we have retained the option of undertakings set out in Section 46 of the Family Law

  GC 475
  Act 1996. The Committee will remember that there were those who argued that we should expunge undertakings in their entirety.
  When we asked, in the Safety and Justice consultation paper, whether undertakings should be retained, opinion was divided between those who felt that we should abolish them, as they were insufficient protection for victims, particularly where there has been evidence of violence, and those who felt that it was important that as many options as possible should be made available to the victim. Taking away the option of undertakings would restrict that choice.
  To address the issue of whether a victim could be pressurised by a violent partner into accepting an undertaking in circumstances where it was clearly inappropriate, we have made it clear in Schedule 4 that an undertaking shall not be accepted by the courts where it appears that the respondent has used or threatened violence against the applicant or relevant child, and where it is necessary for the protection of the applicant or child to make a non-molestation order, breach of which can be punishable as a criminal offence.
  Members of the Committee will be familiar with the cycle in many domestic violence cases: a man persuades his partner that the violence was an aberration and that it will not happen again; he loves his partner dearly and in a lasting way and he believes that the matter should be forgiven and put to one side. That is a pattern that is repeated many times before the partner has the courage to come to the courts for the first time.
  This reflects the current position that the court may not accept an undertaking in a case where it is required, by Section 47(2), to attach a power of arrest to the order because the respondent has used or threatened violence. We believe that that strikes the right balance between retaining undertakings, to which no power of arrest may be attached, and ensuring that where there is evidence of violence, victims cannot be coerced into accepting undertakings that will not provide the right level of protection.
  There is another view that we should attach the breach of order to undertakings as well. In the current sphere, if you breach an undertaking of the court, you can be held in contempt and you can be dealt with. There are those who would argue, and argue quite vociferously, that there should be no distinction between "undertaking" and "order".
  The amendment in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, would override the court's duty not to accept an undertaking even where there has been evidence of violence and it is clearly in the victim's interest and in that of any relevant child that a non-molestation order is made. This would, I fear, open the way for the violent partner to exert influence on the victim to accept an undertaking in the full knowledge that any breach of the undertaking would not be a criminal offence.
  GC 476
  In addition, the first part of the amendment to require a court to take into account the wishes of the sufferer is, if I may respectfully say so, unnecessary. It has always been for the court to take into account the wishes of the victim when considering whether to accept an undertaking. It is, of course, a matter for the applicant and respondent to agree any such undertaking.
  The amendment would reduce the level of protection for domestic violence victims which, I am absolutely certain, is not what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, or the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, wish to happen. For those reasons, I am not able, on this occasion, to accept the amendment, although I understand entirely the concern of the noble Baroness to enable those who wish to rehabilitate their relationship and/or their marriage to be in a position to do so. We agree, but not in this way.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister. I entirely accept her point that this would effect no change in the situation from that which persists before the Bill becomes law.
  There is a difficulty, as the Minister says, that people who are abused in domestic relationships can be persuaded by the perpetrator that all will be well if only they will stick by him or her for a little longer. One can then enter into a cycle of abuse and forgiveness from which it is very difficult to escape. However, there are people who genuinely do not wish to criminalise their partner but do not wish to carry on living with them either. There is a concern among some who have briefed us, lawyers and others, that we are taking away that freedom of action from some people.
  I entirely accept what the Minister says with regard to the difficulties of ensuring that undertakings are not given in circumstances in which the victim—the sufferer—is being pressured. That is always a problem. The difficulty in this case is that although the Government put this out to consultation some time ago and there were, as the Minister said, different views about how the problem might be resolved, the fact that the Bill is now being debated is only just beginning to be known. That is one of the problems with Bills that begin in the House of Lords. Necessarily, they tend to get ignored by the press, particularly when they are stuck in Grand Committee. As far as the press are concerned, this does not exist— it is not even published in the timetable in the newspaper each week. It is only occasionally, when titbits from noble Lords' speeches are put on the web that people become interested and motivated. So although we have already rehearsed some of the arguments in Clause 1, I am only now beginning to receive representations about the difficulties involved. I have heard from some members of the judiciary, who sit every day in county courts dealing with these matters.
  I would be failing in my duty to Victim Support if I did not point out that it agrees with the Minister when she said that some people would like undertakings to go altogether. In its response on the amendment, Victim Support says that it considers that

  GC 477
  undertakings can be seen as an easy option for the court but they provide no safety net for the victim. It suggests that some research is carried out to investigate whether undertakings have any benefits for victims or whether the risks are such that they should be abolished.
  I have undertaken to meet Victim Support again between now and Report and also the Solicitors Family Law Association, among other organisations, so that we can look very carefully at Clause 1 and its ramifications for the rest of the Bill. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  4.45 p.m.
  Baroness Walmsley Baroness Walmsley moved Amendment No. 106:
  Page 24, line 17, after ""relative"," insert "after "nephew" insert "or cousin" and"
  The noble Baroness said: I rise to move Amendment No. 106 in the names of my noble friends Lord McNally and Lady Thomas of Walliswood. The purpose of Amendment No. 106 is to put right an apparent omission that was noted by Women's Aid after the passing of the Family Law Act 1996. It relates to the definition of "associated persons" for the purposes of the Act. It includes in Section 63— interpretation of Part 4—a definition of "relative", which includes a wide range of family members including aunts, uncles, nieces and nephews, but does not include cousins, who may well be a member of the same household or in a domestic relationship.
  The omission appears simply to be an oversight. Cousins are as relevant as the other relatives that are named, therefore we seek to insert "cousins" into the Bill. This appears to be an appropriate opportunity to put right that apparent omission. We hope that it will be received favourably by the Minister. I beg to move.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for highlighting the fact that cousins are not currently included in the definition of "associated persons" in Sections 62 and 63 of the Family Law Act 1996. That definition controls the type of relationships, which are eligible for protection through non-molestation and occupation orders. It already, as the noble Baroness rightly says, includes a wide range of family members, including aunts, uncles, nephews and nieces, but, as she says, not cousins.
  We would like to consider further whether cousins without a more precise definition may cover too wide a category of relative. For instance, should it cover first and second cousins? I believe that in some cultures "cousin" can be used to describe almost any blood relative. In our House, that may have some very interesting ramifications. It is important that we make any additions to the relevant person category of the Family Law Act consistent with what is already included. If the Committee is content, I would like to
  GC 478
  consider this matter further. I give notice to all noble Lords who currently say "my noble kinsman" that they may wish to consider their positions.
  Baroness Walmsley: I thank the Minister for that response. I would have thought that first cousins would provide the same level of affinity as uncles, aunts and nieces and nephews. It may not be appropriate to extend it beyond that, but I hope that the noble Baroness's further consideration will at least include a consideration of putting in "first cousins". With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 107 to 110 not moved.]
  Schedule 4 agreed to.
  Schedule 5 [Repeals]:
  [Amendment No. 111 not moved.]
  Schedule 5 agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 112 not moved.]
  Clause 27 [Transitional and transitory provisions]:
  [Amendment No. 113 not moved.]
  Clause 27 agreed to.
  Clause 28 agreed to.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 113A:
  After Clause 28, insert the following new clause—
  "COMMENCEMENT OF PARTS 1 TO 3: CERTIFICATION OF SUFFICIENT RESOURCES The Secretary of State may not make any order under section 28 bringing any provision or provisions of Parts 1 to 3 of this Act into force until he has laid a certificate before both Houses of Parliament stating that he is satisfied that sufficient resources have been provided to enable the provision or provisions concerned adequately to be given practical effect."
  The noble Baroness said: I can be briefer than expected, as I shall explain soon because of the time at which we meet the issue. The amendment would require that before any element of Parts 1 to 3 of the Bill were brought into force, the Secretary of State would have to certify to both Houses that sufficient resources were being provided in order adequately to give the provisions practical effect.
  My objective is to draw attention to the significant call upon resources that will be made by the implementation of the provisions of the Bill. The police, the Prison Service and the Probation Service are currently overstretched and the Bill will bring extra burdens. It is important that the Government should take those into account when the various parts of the Bill are implemented.
  The Bill will also have, as noble Lords have pointed out, a significant impact upon the voluntary agencies which must implement the victims' code. No doubt they will take on that work with good will. Victim Support has pointed out that it supports the improvement of services to victims that were heralded in the Government's 2001 general election manifesto and which are finally—three years further on—finding their way onto the statute book.

  GC 479
  I had a second reason for tabling the amendment. It was to draw attention to the fact that we are being asked to allow the Bill to progress from Committee to Report, and perhaps even further, without being given information about provisions that could be the impetus for even greater resource implications. I refer, of course, to the provisions that the Government intend to introduce, if they can, as a result of their consultation document, Compensation and Support for Victims of Crime.
  I am grateful to the Minister for offering to meet me, together with my colleagues from another place, to brief us on the Government's work thus far. That was very helpful. We have taken her up on that offer and shall be meeting her tomorrow. When I tabled the amendment, I had thought that we would reach it after the meeting. However, we are now dealing with it before the meeting. Therefore, I have given notice of what I am doing. A substantive part of the amendment is still relevant to today's debate, although, in some respects, it is a lesser part. It is obviously an issue to which I shall need to return on another occasion. In the mean time, I beg to move.
  Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Perhaps I may delay this gallop to the finishing line for 20 seconds by asking the Minister, when she responds, to bear in mind the famous remark of the late Lord Wilberforce:
  "Those who will the end must will the means".
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Precisely, and the other place will be seized of that matter. The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness would prevent the Secretary of State commencing provisions in Parts 1 to 3 of the Bill unless he had laid before both Houses a certificate stating that he was satisfied that sufficient resources had been provided to enable the provision to be given practical effect. When she tabled the amendment, the noble Baroness was very aware of the effect that it would have and, indeed, of the control that we in this House, as opposed to the other place, have on those matters. However, I understand her intent as she expressed it.
  Of course, the Government are committed to ensuring that sufficient resources are available before the Bill's provisions are commenced. The regulatory impact assessment, which was published at the same time as the Bill, gave our best estimates of the costs of commencing the provisions. I am sure that the noble Baroness has looked at those.
  Noble Lords will know that I cannot pre-empt the outcome of the Government's current spending review process, even if I wished so to do. However, during the Bill's passage, I have made clear the importance that the Government attach to the Bill. It will be implemented as and when the necessary resources are available to do so but, so far as I am aware, it is unnecessary and unprecedented to require the Secretary of State to certify that before commencement. As I indicated, it is also more proper for these matters to be considered by the other place, which, as convention has it, still holds the purse
  GC 480
  strings—unfortunately for this House. For that reason, as the noble Baroness would already have known, I cannot agree to the amendment.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Within such confines, of course I am grateful for that response. However, we shall need to return to the matter. The noble Baroness refers to the regulatory impact assessment. It does not make for very happy reading and, indeed, the regulatory impact assessment for the consultative provisions simply states "partial". Therefore, we have much work ahead of us on the Bill both as it stands before us and as it might stand when it returns from another place. It is hoped that the Government might manage to delay the Bill so that it can be properly Christmas-treed by them and considered before it leaves here. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 29 [Orders]:
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 113B:
  Page 15, line 11, leave out "6(5)" and insert "6(4) and (5)"
  The noble Baroness said: This amendment follows up a query I made at a briefing meeting. I asked, the Minister why the order-making powers did not appear to relate to the correct subsection. Subsection (3) of Clause 29 states:
  "A statutory instrument containing an order under section 6(5) or 14(7) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament".
  At the meeting, I asked the Minister about subsection (4) of Clause 6, which is also subject to an important order-making power. When I followed the matter up, the answer I was given by the Public Bill Office and the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee was that the matter did not concern subsection (4) or subsection (5) of Clause 6 but rather subsection (6).
  I thought that the Government would table an amendment because the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report stated that the Government had told that committee that they would either table an amendment in Committee or make a printing change. I could not understand how what appears to be a substantive amendment could be effected by a printing change. Therefore, I have tabled my amendment to see what response I am given. I spoke to officials in the Home Office who in turn spoke to officials in the Public Bill Office, who said that the amendment would be effected by way of a printing change. We need an explanation on the record of how that can be achieved. If a matter as significant as that can be effected by way of a printing change, that has serious implications for later amendments. I beg to move.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The noble Baroness is absolutely right. Clause 29 incorrectly refers to orders made under subsection (5) of Clause 6. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising the issue when I briefed

  GC 481
  your Lordships shortly after introduction of the Bill. I can confirm that the error will be corrected as a matter of printing after Committee stage has concluded.
  I can assist the noble Baroness to the following extent. One asks officials in the Public Bill Office and others how the matter can be addressed. They then tell you, in convention terms, how it can be done, and after that we tend to say, "Thank you". With that in mind and given that the amendment as tabled would incorrectly refer to order-making powers under subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 6 rather than subsection (6), I hope that the noble Baroness can withdraw her amendment. I have found that it is better to say "Thank you" because the officials are invariably correct.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful for that reply. Of course, one has to ask what the situation would be if there were order-making powers in
  GC 482
  subsection (4) of Clause 6. I assume that then the Government would not have been able simply to say "Thank you, let us effect this amendment by a printing change". I thought that it was important for that explanation to be put on the record; otherwise, it looks as though we are conniving at something behind the scenes. Sometimes, Front-Bench spokesmen are accused of that, but, of course, it is never the case. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 29 agreed to.
  Clause 30 [Extent]:
  [Amendment No. 114 not moved.]
  Clause 30 agreed to.
  Clause 31 agreed to.
  Bill reported with amendments.
  The Committee adjourned at two minutes before five o'clock.

  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  Northern Ireland: Crime Reduction Targets
  Northern Ireland: Crime Reduction Targets
  Romania: Care Centres
  Romania: Care Centres
  Pakistan: Visas
  Pakistan: Visas
  Afghanistan
  Afghanistan
  Eritrea and Ethiopia
  Eritrea and Ethiopia
  Zimbabwe: England Cricket Tour
  Zimbabwe: England Cricket Tour
  Iraq: Local Councils
  Iraq: Local Councils
  Western Sahara
  Western Sahara
  Middle East: Gaza Settlements
  Middle East: Gaza Settlements
  Voluntary Work: Insurance
  Voluntary Work: Insurance
  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001
  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001
  Good Practice Safety Guide
  Good Practice Safety Guide
  Local Authorities: Local Advocacy Plans
  Local Authorities: Local Advocacy Plans
  Gulf War 1990– 91: Vaccines
  Gulf War 1990– 91: Vaccines
  A400M: Defensive Aids Sub-system
  A400M: Defensive Aids Sub-system
  Obesity
  Obesity
  MMR Vaccine
  MMR Vaccine
  Carers
  Carers
  Smoking
  Smoking
  Schools: Relationships Education
  Schools: Relationships Education
  Nursery Education
  Nursery Education
  Children
  Children
  Schools: Extended Services
  Schools: Extended Services
  Broadband
  Broadband
  Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive
  Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive
  Royal Parks
  Royal Parks
  Drug Free Sport Directorate
  Drug Free Sport Directorate
  Penrose Inquiry
  Penrose Inquiry
  Public Finances
  Public Finances
  Footpaths: Motorised Vehicles
  Footpaths: Motorised Vehicles
  Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: Employees
  Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: Employees
  Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: Consultations
  Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: Consultations
  Sheep: Electronic Identification
  Sheep: Electronic Identification
  London Markets
  London Markets
  Special Advisers
  Special Advisers

  Gibraltar: Constitutional Proposals
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)
  The Chief Minister of Gibraltar wrote to my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary on 22 December, formally tabling proposals for reform of the 1969 Gibraltar Constitution. He has replied, acknowledging the importance of these proposals to Gibraltar, and saying that they will receive the most careful consideration. He expects to meet the Chief Minister soon for an initial discussion.

  The cornerstone of our policy towards Gibraltar remains the sovereignty commitment, that the UK Government will never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes. Whatever the outcome of the present proposals, that position will not change.

  The starting point for consideration of these proposals is the Government's general policy towards the UK's relations with our Overseas Territories, as set out in the 1999 White Paper, Partnership for Progress and Prosperity: Britain and the Overseas Territories (Cm 4264). As my honourable friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Rammell) said in his Written Statement of 18 December 2003 (Official Report, Commons, cols 151WS–152WS) the security and good governance of the Overseas Territories remains a key foreign policy objective for this Government.

  While the people of Gibraltar wish to remain British, it is essential that there should be an appropriate balance of powers between the UK and Gibraltar. While we recognise the aspiration of the people of Gibraltar to manage more of their own affairs, the UK Government must have sufficient and effective powers to protect their overall responsibility for ensuring good governance, compliance with international obligations and minimisation of contingent liabilities. An assessment of the powers required by the UK Government to deliver a balanced and modern relationship must, in particular, take full account of the fact that the UK is responsible for Gibraltar's compliance with EU law, including ultimately before the European Court of Justice. And, in considering the constitutional relationship between the UK and Gibraltar, Her Majesty's Government will take account of Gibraltar's particular circumstances and the wider international context.
  WS 38
  This Government will therefore study the proposals put forward by the Gibraltar Government, and look forward to discussion of them in due course, with a view to the further development of a modern and appropriate relationship with Gibraltar.

  Liberia: Amendment of UN Sanctions
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
  With the support of Her Majesty's Government, the United Nations Security Council on 22 December 2003 unanimously adopted United Nations Security Council Resolution 1521 (2003). The resolution revised the determination for the basis of sanctions against: Liberia. UNSCR 1343(2001) was based on Liberia's (in particular former President Charles Taylor and the former Government of Liberia) threat to Sierra Leone. The new resolution is based on Liberia's instability and the threat of proliferation of arms and armed non-state actors (including mercenaries) and their potential threat to the greater sub-region. The measures against Liberia remain the same: an arms embargo, a travel ban, a timber ban and a diamond embargo. The lift criteria have been revised. The travel ban will be started from scratch and include those who constitute a threat to the peace process in Liberia, or who are engaged in activities aimed at undermining peace and stability in Liberia and the sub-region (including senior members of former President Charles Taylor's government and their spouses and members of Liberia's former armed forces who retain links to former President Charles Taylor).

  Sudan: Amendment of EU Sanctions
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
  With the support of Her Majesty's Government, the original Council Decision 94/165/CFSP of 15 March 1994 imposing an EU arms embargo against Sudan was repealed and replaced by Common Position CFSP/31/2004 on 9 January 2004. A Council regulation will follow shortly. The embargo prohibits (a) the delivery or supply of arms and related materiel to Sudan; (b) the provision of technical assistance, brokering services and other services related to military activities and to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of arms and related materiel to any person, entity or body in, or for use in, Sudan; and (c) the provision of financing or financial assistance related to military activities to any person, entity or body, in or for use in, Sudan. Exemptions to the embargo are permitted for non-lethal military equipment intended solely for humanitarian or protective use, institution building programmes of the UN, EU and European Community, for materiel intended for EU and UN crisis management, for demining equipment and materiel for use in demining operations, and for the provision of financing, financial assistance and technical assistance related to such equipment.

  Organised Crime
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)
  Since 1997 crime in England and Wales has fallen by a quarter. The chances of being a victim of crime are now at their lowest for over 20 years. At the same time, we continue to face a major challenge from organised crime which costs the country billions of pounds in lost revenue, facilitates 70 per cent of all illegal immigration to the European Union and can cause local communities huge damage, for example through its link with local drugs markets and all the problems of addiction and crime that go with them. The UK crack and heroin markets alone are estimated to be worth £3 billion per year.

  Organised criminals are willing to resort to extreme violence, intimidation and corruption to protect their illegal businesses. They often display detailed awareness of law enforcement methods and take sophisticated counter measures including counter surveillance techniques and elaborate money laundering arrangements. Through their involvement in people trafficking, organised criminals exploit the vulnerable and deal in human misery as appears to be the case in the tragic events at Morecambe Bay at the end of last week. They use every legal device available to them to evade prosecution when they are arrested.

  Responsibility for tackling organised crime has until now been spread across a range of different agencies. Each of them has been highly effective in their own area of specialism—and we pay tribute to the outstanding work they and their staff have undertaken to date—but each must also work within its own priorities and departmental structures. This can make co-ordination difficult and has led to blurred lines of accountability in some key areas like drugs and fraud and to a lack of critical mass in some important skill areas like those required to tackle financial and other economic crime.

  In response to these issues, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced last July that the government would be reviewing the structures of our national law enforcement agencies responsible for investigating serious organised crime.

  Over the past six months we have undertaken detailed consultations with all those involved in fighting organised crime, including the police service and all of the relevant national agencies and regulators. The clear view from almost all we consulted was that the present arrangements were not satisfactory and that there was a strong case for rationalising existing structures.

  My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has therefore today announced the next step in this process. Drawing on the lessons from this consultation we intend to bring together in a single national agency—the Serious Organised Crime Agency— which will report to the Home Secretary, the responsibilities which currently fall to the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the National Crime Squad, the Home Office's responsibilities for organised immigration crime and the investigation and intelligence responsibilities of HM Customs and
  WS 40
  Excise in tackling serious drug trafficking and recovering related criminal assets. The agency will also bring a new focus to bear on dealing with the problem of financial crime.

  The creation of the new agency is a key part of a wider series of changes including new powers available to tackle organised crime. We will set out the detail of all these changes in a Statement to the House when we publish a policy paper within the next few weeks.

  The new agency will have as its core objective reducing the harm caused to the UK and its citizens by organised crime including the trafficking of drugs and people. It will have the capabilities to make a real difference through enhanced intelligence, financial investigation skills, economic analysis and better and more sophisticated use of technology. It will develop a comprehensive strategy for reducing the harm caused by organised crime and will be much more than the sum of its parts, drawing on best practice and skills from all the existing agencies to focus on those criminals and criminal markets causing us the most harm. It will work very closely with the revenue departments which will continue to be responsible for tackling revenue and tax fraud.

  It will build on the determination, professionalism and success of the existing agencies and their staff and will be approaching 5,000 strong.

  The new agency will work closely with police forces, regulators and others throughout the UK. Its focus will be on crime that crosses national and international frontiers. But, where a request is made, or where it is otherwise agreed, it will also have a key role in supporting individual police forces in tackling crime that crosses police force boundaries. It will provide intelligence from criminal activity to the wider law enforcement community, drawing on the intelligence they themselves provide in developing a firm understanding and strategy.

  The agency will have a UK-wide remit. However, in Scotland and Northern Ireland, the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency and the Police Service of Northern Ireland will continue to exercise the functions they currently undertake in partnership with existing UK agencies.

  Specialist prosecutors answerable to my noble friend the Attorney-General will co-operate closely with officers of the new agency and work alongside them wherever this makes good operational sense. They will be available whenever required to provide comprehensive, practical and specialist advice to help to shape investigations and develop strong and well presented cases for prosecution. The specialist prosecutors will stay with each case from the outset of investigations right through to the point of sentence.

  The arrangements for the agency's governance will be crucial. A Home Office-led task force, including representatives of those who will form part of the new organisation, will consult stakeholders on this and

  WS 41
  report back by the end of this month enabling me to give further details to the House in the Statement to which I have already referred. The agency will need high powered and dynamic leadership to ensure that it becomes a world leader in its field, so we are today appointing an executive search agency to help us recruit a chairman and director general, with a view to having them in place by the early summer.

  Until their appointment, representatives of all the agencies concerned will be driving forward the transition process, under Home Office chairmanship, to enable the agency to get off to a rapid and effective start.

  We shall take the earliest opportunity to seek Parliament's approval for the legislation needed to establish the Serious Organised Crime Agency but will seek as far as possible to anticipate the benefits of these changes through closer joint working and operations, training and secondments so that this transitional phase enhances rather than disrupts this critical work.

  Those who seek to damage our country and undermine our way of life through organised crime will continue to grow in expertise and sophistication. We must more than match them and ensure that the skills and insights we have developed in different areas are shared. These proposals will enable us to respond to these challenges effectively in the years ahead.

  Veterans Initiative: Heroes Return Programme
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach)
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ivor Caplin) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  We are announcing the launch today of "Heroes Return". This forms a central element of what has now become the "Veterans Reunited" programme, and will enable all generations to join together to remember and commemorate the 60th anniversary of the remarkable events of 1944 and 1945 that led to the end of the Second World War.

  The New Opportunities Fund in collaboration with the Department for Culture Media and Sport and the Ministry of Defence has made available £10 million of national lottery funding for many thousands of veterans to return to the overseas areas in which they saw active service during the Second World War. These visits will generate a rich supply of living memories for our schools and museums and young people will have the opportunity to learn from veterans experiences.

  In addition to the crucial role of the New Opportunities Fund and the DCMS, the Veterans Agency will provide applicants with advice and support through their freephone help line on 0800 169 2277, and further information is available on the website at www.veteransagency.mod.uk.

  European Union: Economic Reform
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Mcintosh of Haringey)
  My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made the following Written Ministerial Statement in the House of Commons.

  The Government are today publishing a new report on economic reform in the EU.

  The report evaluates the progress made in reforming Europe's economy since the March 2000 Lisbon European Council, noting both the EU's achievements over the past four years and the scale of the challenge ahead if Europe is to compete effectively in the global economy and meet its goals of higher productivity, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. It notes that, while 6 million jobs have been created in Europe since 1999, a further 21 million are needed to meet the Union's target for 2010. Moreover, productivity in the US remains at least 14 per cent higher than that in the EU.

  The report concludes that further action is needed to improve efficiency and productivity in Europe, with steps to promote increased labour, product and capital market flexibility. It sets out a series of areas for reform ahead of the forthcoming spring European Council, including to improve the regulatory framework in Europe, strengthen the single market, deliver more and better jobs, promote enterprise and innovation, ensure an ambitious outcome to world trade negotiations, strengthen the transatlantic economic relationship, and meet the challenge of sustainable development.

  Copies of the report are available in the Printed Paper Office and the Library of the House.

  Independent Regulators: Government Response to Better Regulation Task Force Report
  Lord Bassam of Brighton
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Mr Douglas Alexander) has today published the Government's response to the Better Regulation Task Force's report Independent Regulators, which the task force issued on 15 October 2003. Mr Douglas Alexander would like to take this opportunity to thank them for the work they have undertaken in producing their report, and to welcome the recommendations they have made, all 14 of which have been accepted by the Government.

  In our response, we have emphasised our support for regulators to adopt the five principles of good regulation, and the code of practice on consultation; and to produce regulatory impact assessments for any new policies or initiatives which they originate. We commend the use of the enforcement concordat by relevant regulators. The Government will consider very carefully the scope and scale of existing regulators before establishing a new one, and assess regularly their continuing effectiveness once established. We are

  WS 43
  to carry out a review of the variety and complexity of public bodies sponsored by central government departments, and this will encompass consideration of regulatory bodies.

  The task force has rightly highlighted the point that the subject of the report was "independent" regulators, so the Government's role is to encourage, support and guide the regulators in their tasks, not to enforce rules and procedures. It is also the case that independent regulators are a very disparate band of bodies, so it
  WS 44
  would be impossible to produce a one-size-fits-all set of very detailed responses. We must also be wary of increasing the costs of and burdens on the regulatory community, and those whom they regulate, unless we can be satisfied of the value of the outcomes achieved.

  Copies of the report and the Government's response are available in the Libraries of both Houses, and will be available on the Better Regulation Task Force's website at:-

  http://www.brtf.gov.uk/taskforce/Pastreports.htin.