Sitting of 6 January 2004

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

    Railways
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: If he will make a statement on plans to improve rail links between London and Gloucestershire. [145864]
    The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Kim Howells): There have already been significant improvements. New rolling stock was recently introduced between London and Gloucester, and in May 2003 the number of Paddington to Gloucester trains was roughly doubled. In addition, the new Thames Trains franchise, which was announced in December, will have consequent benefits for routes between London and Gloucestershire.
    Mr. Robertson: I thank the Minister for that reply, although I must say that people in Gloucestershire who travel to London might not recognise the improvements he describes. I spoke to the Strategic Rail Authority only this morning, and it told me that there is no certainty of improved services until 2006. I understand that the SRA will not advertise the new franchises until next year, yet there is an urgent need to improve rail transport between Gloucestershire and London. Furthermore, the link with Ashchurch station, which opened only recently, has been made almost worthless by the reduction in services from that station. Many people who live in Gloucestershire choose to drive to London because of the inadequacy of the rail services.
    Dr. Howells: I am very much aware that, owing to a timetable overhaul involving the SRA, Network Rail and the train operator, Virgin CrossCountry, trains bound for Tewkesbury stopped calling at Ashchurch station last September to effect an improvement in the poor timekeeping of Virgin's cross-country services. The most recently published figures show that the subsequent improvement in the percentage of trains arriving on time has been about 20 per cent. Ashchurch retains a very good local service to Gloucester and Cheltenham, as well as to Cardiff, Worcester and Birmingham.
    Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: As the Member of Parliament for Gloucester, I am pleased
    140
    about the doubling of the number of trains from Gloucester to London and the enhanced regional service to Bristol and Swindon, but we have suffered in respect of some of our inter-city trains, so if the Government-funded viability study into a new station for Gloucester is completed at the end of the month and it proposes a new station on the main line, which would further enhance the service, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to support the proposal and to do something that the Conservatives were afraid to do when they were in government.
    Dr. Howells: I look forward to receiving a copy of the survey report.
    Mr. Peter Luff: I was glad to hear the Minister refer to the Thames Trains franchise during his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), as the company provides important services to Gloucestershire and to Worcestershire. I am also glad that the new franchise has been awarded to First Great Western, which will result in a substantial improvement to services in Gloucestershire and Worcestershire, but does the Minister agree that the only way to ensure that such an improvement is provided is to increase significantly dual-track sections on the Cotswold line, which still suffers from very long sections of single track with consequent unreliability for all passengers using it?
    Dr. Howells: I certainly sympathise with the hon. Gentleman, as the issue has long been a bone of contention with passengers. He knows, however, that laying four tracks is not inexpensive—it is a very, very expensive thing to do—
    Mr. Luff: Two tracks.
    Dr. Howells: I am sorry—two tracks. I shall certainly ask the SRA what part the project might play in any strategy it cares to come up with for services to Worcester in the future.
    Mrs. Theresa May: Any changes to rail links between London and Gloucestershire affect the main Great Western line and, indeed, Thames Trains services, as the Minister pointed out. Does he agree with the SRA that changes currently proposed to those services will bring improvements for passengers on both long distance and local services?
    Dr. Howells: That has to be the ideal objective for the SRA in anything that it does in detailing the new franchise. I should like to see improved services for people travelling over all distances on a line that I use every week. I know of the problems that people have suffered along the line and I very much hope that the recent improvements will continue.
    Mrs. May: The Minister refers to the ideal for improvements along the line, but of course the changes proposed by the SRA will be far from the ideal. The changes that the authority is making on the Great Western line mean slower trains to places such as Slough and Bourne End, no single-stop services to London from Maidenhead and Twyford and, for some

    141
    passengers, journey times will nearly double. The Government's obsession with targets means that passengers on local services now face slower trains, longer journeys and more overcrowding? Added to higher fares and worse reliability, is not the reality that, far from delivering improvements and a better service, the Government are delivering a failing service for rail passengers and that motorists, rail users and tube users all suffer from this failing Government?
    Dr. Howells: The hon. Lady will not be surprised if I say, no, I do not recognise that. I am sure that she will know—if she was open with us, she would say so—that the problem is her Government's appallingly botched privatisation of the railway system, which we are still trying to repair and into which we are putting a lot of money.

    Rural Bus Services
    Norman Lamb: If he will make a statement on rural bus services. [145865]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): We have an excellent record of supporting rural bus services. Since 1998, rural bus subsidy grant allocations have totalled more than £200 million. This year's allocation is £48.5 million, which supports more than 2,100 rural bus services throughout England. We have also supported some 250 projects, totalling £89 million, through the rural bus challenge.
    Norman Lamb: I thank the Minister for that response, but may I remind him that, in Norfolk, Countryside Agency funding for a number of valuable dial-a-ride services is coming to an end? In some cases, it has already come to an end. The county council has failed to plug the gap that has been left, so a number of schemes are on the brink of being lost. What action is he taking to secure sustainable funding for these very important schemes, which an awful lot of elderly people, especially those in rural areas, rely on absolutely?
    Mr. McNulty: First and foremost, that is a matter for Norfolk county council and the Countryside Agency. The hon. Gentleman has been in touch with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to express those concerns, but he will know that Norfolk's rural bus subsidy grant allocation this year is £2.4 million—the largest in the country—and that Norfolk has also received rural bus challenge funding for six projects totalling £2.3 million. The RBC currently provides £276,000 for the flexibus project in North Norfolk.
    The hon. Gentleman raised this issue in an Adjournment debate last July and said that he would write to me to secure a meeting. The letter requesting that meeting arrived on 24 December, so I congratulate him on his speed and would say simply in response that I am more than happy to meet him and anyone else from Norfolk to discuss matters further. However, first and foremost, much of what he raises is for the county council and DEFRA, but I am happy to meet him.
    Mr. John Grogan: Does my hon. Friend accept that pensioners travelling on buses in rural areas
    142
    receive far less public subsidy in terms of concessionary fares than pensioners in urban areas of England, which have passenger transport authorities? Does not that underline the need for England to follow the example of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in offering all pensioners free off-peak bus travel in urban and rural areas?
    Mr. McNulty: That is certainly a view, and I am more than happy to discuss it further with my hon. Friend, not least in terms of the amount it would cost. We will shortly announce another package of rural bus challenge funds, including kickstart funding, but we are clear that the bus is central to an integrated transport solution to social exclusion in rural and urban areas, not least for the elderly.
    Mr. Adrian Flook: Even before the announcement of local government funding, Lib-Dem controlled Somerset county council announced that it was considering cutting its subsidy for buses by up to a quarter, despite the fact it is a rural county. How does that accord with Government policy?
    Mr. McNulty: Happily, it does not accord with Government policy. Of course, the Lib Dems in Somerset probably have a different policy from Lib Dems in the neighbouring counties and districts. Absolutely nothing that the Lib Dems do or say accords with Government policy, which is why they will for ever remain a rump in the House and we will remain in government.

    School Transport
    Mr. Huw Edwards: If he will make a statement on his proposals for school transport. [145866]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Transport and for Education and Skills announced joint proposals for school transport in the document, "Travelling to School: an action plan", which was published on 17 September last year.
    Mr. Edwards: I thank my hon. Friend and assure him that I would fully support a school transport Bill that ended the legalised over-crowding that has occurred in many areas, but may I also express the concern that, if there is any threat to free school transport for those who live more than three miles from school, it would have a very serious effect in rural areas such as my own, where the comprehensive schools are 15 or 20 miles apart? May I ask the Government to consider that seriously?
    Mr. Jamieson: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work on school bus safety and school transport in general. I assure him that the pilots that we have announced, which we are funding with £7.5 million each year for the next two years, will examine new and innovative arrangements for providing school buses. Local people, parents, providers of services and schools would have to be consulted carefully on any proposed scheme. There might be many benefits for children who

    143
    do not receive any bus service provision at the moment, including those who do not get a free service when travelling fewer than three miles, which may be of great benefit to many in rural areas.
    Michael Fabricant: Is the Minister aware that Staffordshire has purchased specialised school buses from the United States of America that resist impact when stationary and have flashing lights to stop cars overtaking when children are crossing the road? May I invite him to visit Staffordshire, which once again sets the way while the rest of the nation merely follows?
    Mr. Jamieson: I would be pleased to visit Staffordshire and see the hon. Gentleman and I would also be pleased to go to other areas that have introduced American-style yellow school buses—I believe that they have been very successful. A dedicated school bus service is attractive to parents because the buses provide a safe environment and have regular drivers who get to know children. We are happy to examine any scheme under the local transport plan budget that will provide such quality transport for children going to school, as we have done recently in west Yorkshire, where we provided a substantial sum for yellow buses.
    Jeff Ennis: The Government are trying to extend to as many parents as possible the choice of the school that they want their children to attend. It is quite easy to extend parental choice to the better-off because they can use cars to get their children to school, but the situation is more difficult for working-class children. Will the Government adopt a more flexible approach to their policy on free transport to schools so that working-class parents are able to send their children to the school of their choice?
    Mr. Jamieson: I am in danger of straying into Education and Skills questions. When examining any proposal made by a local authority, we would consider whether it would reduce car use, create healthier journeys to school for children and give them the ability to cycle or walk when possible. However, we should especially consider how to create a system that would give an advantage to all children and not only those who benefit from the existing travel-to-school system.
    Mr. A.J.Beith: Will the Minister give an assurance that the introduction of pilot schemes will not lead to pressure on all local authorities to withdraw free school transport for children who, in areas such as Northumberland, might have to travel 10, 20 or 25 miles to school at high cost? Our area has already experienced the withdrawal of free transport for those over 16, which has had a consequential effect on people's willingness to carry on courses, so it is a worrying prospect.
    Mr. Jamieson: There is no intention to introduce a widespread withdrawal of the free transport system. As I said, any scheme would have to meet certain criteria and, most importantly, there would have to be careful local consultation. The plan would not come from central Government to local government because it
    144
    would have to be consulted on locally. We shall examine schemes to ensure that they would not disadvantage children who have to travel long distances, especially those in rural areas. It is important to remember that many children, especially those in rural areas, are not covered by the existing system. We want a much fairer system of travel to school that takes account of the needs of all children rather than only a few.

    Airport Capacity
    Mr. Bill Tynan: If he will set a date for revisiting the decisions announced in "The Future of Air Transport" White Paper in relation to demand for additional runways to be built at Glasgow International and Edinburgh airports. [145867]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): The Government's decisions in relation to additional runway capacity in central Scotland are set out in the White Paper that I published in December. These will not change in the foreseeable future, but the White Paper includes a commitment to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the approach that it sets out and we will report progress in 2006.
    Mr. Tynan: Obviously, the economic argument in paragraph 5.7 of the White Paper is that express freight and flown mail are the main reasons why Edinburgh may achieve an additional runway. Does my right hon. Friend agree that he should consider whether there should be an additional runway at Glasgow, based on the facts that the M74 bypass will be in place by about 2007 and that a fast rail link could make the handling of air freight and flown mail at Glasgow airport an attractive proposition?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right. We expect air traffic to grow at Glasgow, Edinburgh and Prestwick, all of which serve central Scotland. He will no doubt bear it in mind that we do not think that any of those airports will need an additional runway before 2020, which is a considerable time away. The White Paper safeguarded the situation so that a second runway could be built at Edinburgh and, if necessary, Glasgow. Consequently, if we get the growth at Glasgow that my hon. Friend describes, it will be able to expand. We anticipate substantial expansion at Glasgow, with additional terminal facilities, as the airport continues to grow and expect people living in central Scotland in general to have a choice of not one but three airports—Edinburgh, Glasgow and Prestwick.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Has the Secretary of State considered the problem of blighted properties between now and 2020, the compensation that may be payable, and the position between Scotland and England and between municipally owned airports and privately owned airports, such as those owned by BAA?
    Mr. Darling: Yes, I have. The proposals and the Government's conclusions are set out in the White Paper, which the hon. Lady has no doubt read.
    Mr. Brian H. DonohoeGiven that the success of Prestwick airport, as

    145
    demonstrated over the past few years, is down to the fact that it is in separate ownership, will the Secretary of State consider the option of selling on some airports in the United Kingdom so that Glasgow and Edinburgh can compete with each other on a proper basis?
    Mr. Darling: First, my hon. Friend is right that Prestwick airport has experienced dramatic growth compared with the position it was in four or five years ago. That is a tribute not just to the people who own it, but in particular to some of our colleagues who represent Ayrshire constituencies. I know that he has taken a keen interest in that.
    BAA, which owns Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen as well as the main London airports and Southampton, is, of course, a private company. Its position in relation to competition is something on which the competition authorities would have to decide. They now take their decisions independent of Ministers, and rightly so.

    Road Congestion
    Tom Brake: If he will make a statement on his plans for traffic congestion reduction. [145868]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): We are tackling congestion through major investment in road improvements as well as measures to improve the flow of traffic and providing improved information for road users. Last July I announced a study to explore the feasibility of options for road pricing.
    Tom Brake: The Secretary of State will recall the Deputy Prime Minister's statement that he should be held to account if he had not reduced road traffic within five years: of course, he failed. The current Secretary of State said that the Traffic Management Bill will allow our roads to be managed more effectively. When does he now expect congestion—not the rate of growth in congestion—to be reduced?
    Mr. Darling: One reason why traffic growth has been so high is that the economy has grown strongly over the past six years. There is not an economy in the world in which such growth has not been accompanied by increased car ownership.
    I have made it clear many times that the objectives set out in the 10-year plan, while admirable, were perhaps over-optimistic because the consequences of strong economic growth in relation to car ownership were not, I think, fully anticipated at the time. However, the measures that we are putting in place to deal with increased capacity on the roads and to manage better the flow of traffic on roads, as well as the longer term measures that we are considering, such as road pricing, all mean that people will continue to go about their day-to-day business, but, we hope, on less congested roads.
    Mr. Michael Connarty: The Secretary of State will know that congestion occurs not only in England but in Scotland as well. Congestion on the M74 into Glasgow has been mentioned. Similarly,
    146
    gaining access to Edinburgh is a great problem for people who come from north of the Forth. Is he in talks with the Scottish Executive on the need to advance another access route in the Kincardine bridge area on to the M876, or is he considering a second Forth road bridge to deal with congestion into Edinburgh?
    Mr. Darling: I know that a second Forth road bridge is a subject of great controversy in Edinburgh, with one's views depending to a large extent on which side of the Forth one happens to live. I am not aware of any current active proposals to build a second bridge at Queensferry, but I think that the Scottish Executive are considering plans to improve the crossing at Kincardine: that bridge is now quite elderly and is under heavy pressure. However, it is for the Scottish Executive to make a decision on that.
    Mr. Piara S. Khabra: My constituency is one of the most congested areas in the whole of London. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what plans his Department has to reduce that congestion, which is environmentally very damaging?
    Mr. Darling: In common with other areas of London, my hon. Friend's constituency suffers from heavy congestion. Two matters are important in relation to London, the first of which is to maintain and continue investment in public transport. My hon. Friend will know that, as a result of the tube partnership, we are putting about £1 billion into the tube every year for the next few years; and, through the grant that we give, the Mayor has improved spending on buses in London. Those two public transport measures will help. Secondly, the measures set out in the Traffic Management Bill, which we debated yesterday, will help to ease the flow of traffic in London and elsewhere.

    Speed Cameras
    Mr. Hugo Swire: What recent representations he has received on speed cameras. [145869]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): We have recently received a number of representations on speed cameras, many from road safety organisations supporting the policy to enforce speed limits using cameras. Those opposed to the policy have expressed themselves mainly through the media. Safety cameras have shown repeatedly that they reduce accidents, deaths and serious injuries, typically by 35 per cent. at camera sites and 4 per cent. across whole areas where cameras are deployed.
    Mr. Swire: Given that speed cameras now raise £17 million a year for the Treasury, will the Minister confirm that a further 3 million motorists are likely to be caught next year by the reduction of speed limits in some areas, and will he state how much extra revenue he hopes that will generate for the Chancellor's increasingly depleted Treasury?
    Mr. Jamieson: I cannot predict how many tickets will be issued next year: that will depend on how many

    147
    people stick to the speed limit. The hon. Gentleman might like to look at one of the cameras in his constituency—the one at Ebdford Dip on the A376 between Exmouth and Exeter. Before the camera was deployed, there were seven accidents involving death or serious injury and 11 involving personal injury. Since May last year, there have been no collisions. If he wants that camera removed, perhaps he should first talk to his constituents.
    Mr. Michael Clapham: My hon. Friend may be aware that in November 2002 digital cameras were fitted on a notorious road in my constituency—the Stocksbridge bypass. The report on the first six months indicates a very positive impact on driver behaviour. When the full-year report comes out this March will the Minister meet my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) and me to consider the scope for further improvement on that road?
    Mr. Jamieson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for underlining the role that cameras play in reducing the number of people killed or seriously injured on our roads. The evidence is that the vast majority of lives saved are those of pedestrians, who are mainly children and elderly people. I look forward eagerly to the full-year analysis of the figures on cameras, and we shall examine it carefully to see whether any changes need to be made. I shall be happy to meet my hon. Friend at that time to discuss with him how cameras have contributed to the reduction in the number of people killed and seriously injured on roads in his area.
    Mr. Damian Green: Last week, the other Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), said on "The World at One" that he would not dismiss out of hand my proposal for a national audit of the positioning of speed cameras. Last night, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) did dismiss it out of hand. There is clearly deep chaos and confusion in the Department about that issue. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm whether the common-sense approach of the hon. Member for Harrow, East or his own more hysterical approach is being taken?
    Mr. Jamieson: We will look carefully at the analysis. It needs a cold, clear, objective analysis, not the more emotive approach taken by the hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether he is familiar with the A292 in his constituency—the Hythe road. Before the camera was fitted on that road, there were 27 crashes, in seven of which people were killed or seriously injured. Since the camera was fitted in May last year, there has been just one crash, resulting in a slight injury.
    Mr. Green: It is interesting that the Minister wants a partial audit, but the Secretary of State and his Department admit that there are no proper full records of how many cameras there are or where they are. That is why we need the audit that I am calling for. The Government invited us last night to do the audit ourselves, so let us start with the camera on the A45 near Birmingham airport, which the police have agreed to
    148
    disable, admitting that it was in the wrong place. Will the Minister now make the commitment that he failed to make last night that motorists who have been convicted on the basis of a camera that the police admit is in the wrong place should be compensated for the fines they have had to pay?
    Mr. Jamieson: It is significant that the hon. Gentleman did not mention the camera in his own area and its success in reducing the number of people killed and seriously injured. He may want to talk to some of his councillors in Ashford, who apparently are campaigning to have cameras fitted where they do not meet the criteria that we set out. He mentioned the camera on the A45—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will listen for a moment and stop chuntering. I am familiar with the camera on the A45, near the airport. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had a letter written to each of the partnerships, asking them to look carefully at each camera. On the strength of the responses to the letter, that camera is being removed. That leaves 3,999. Would the hon. Gentleman like to suggest some others?
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend make it clear that speed cameras are placed in any area only when there is clear evidence of accidents and deaths, and that those who disable speed cameras are contributing directly to the demise of people and should be made liable for that?
    Mr. Jamieson: I can confirm that the cameras in the partnership arrangements are put only at sites where there is a record of injuries or serious injuries. There must also be a record to show that those are caused by vehicles speeding. The rather hysterical debate that there has been among a minority has given succour to those who wanted to destroy the cameras. If the cameras in the two examples that I have given were destroyed or removed, more people would be killed and seriously injured.

    Railways
    Bob Spink: What discussions he has had with the Strategic Rail Authority on providing for the projected increase in rail passenger numbers. [145870]
    The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Kim Howells): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has regular meetings with the chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority and discusses a range of subjects related to the work of that body, including issues arising from a projected increase in passenger numbers.
    Bob Spink: Is it not typical that the Government have a target to increase passenger numbers, at the same time as having a policy to restrict passenger numbers by increasing ticket costs? The cost of a monthly season ticket from London to Southend increased just this week by £17. Is it not time that the Government got together with the SRA and planned to increase capacity on the line—for instance, by considering a new station for Canvey Island?
    Dr. Howells: That is a nice populist line, but the money to run the railways can come from only two

    149
    places. Either it comes from the taxpayer via subsidies, which are enormous—about £3 billion this year—or it must come from the fare box. If the hon. Gentleman wants to talk to whoever speaks these days for the Conservative party on issues relating to the Exchequer, I am sure he can come to an agreement about putting up taxes yet again to increase the subsidy to the railways, but we cannot do that because we are being very careful about how we spend taxpayers' money.
    Mr. Barry Gardiner: I was grateful that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met me before Christmas to discuss increasing the passenger numbers coming through Wembley Stadium station by resolving the issues between the SRA and Network Rail. Will my hon. Friend report on how the negotiations between the two bodies have advanced since then, and how close we are to resolving the issue of the bridges there?
    Dr. Howells: We are due to meet the Strategic Rail Authority and Network Rail shortly to discuss that very subject.
    John Thurso: When the Minister next meets the Strategic Rail Authority, will he ask it why it has been necessary to increase the number of staff employed in regulating the rail industry almost fourfold since privatisation? Will he also ask the SRA why it was necessary in nine months last year to spend £20 million on 26 outside contractors when it has so much in-house resource? Does that not show that the SRA has proved a costly and bureaucratic failure, and that we no longer need it as part of the rail regulatory industry?
    Dr. Howells: I certainly agree that any increase in the number of personnel involved in regulation needs to be questioned. The figures have risen dramatically, and we have certainly asked for answers to our questions about that point, and especially to those about the increase in the number of consultants who are being used, which seems extraordinarily high.
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: The housing growth planned in the Milton Keynes area needs to be underpinned by improved transport infrastructure. Will the Minister ensure that, in considering the current bid to reopen the Bletchley to Bicester section of the east-west rail route, the SRA takes into account the extra housing growth in the area and the need to provide for that additional potential passenger growth?
    Dr. Howells: Yes, indeed. I would expect the SRA to look very carefully at projected growth in housing numbers, as well as economic growth, in those areas. There will certainly be an increase and we must have close regard to that issue in the way in which we serve the area with transport infrastructure.
    Mr. John Horam: Is the Minister aware that, in relation to numbers, one of the biggest problems in the country is on the London commuter lines, where severe overcrowding is practically a daily occurrence? Indeed, the Select Committee on Transport
    150
    pointed out that such conditions lead to stress and ill health. One possible answer is a modest programme to lengthen platforms so that train operators can run 12-coach trains rather than trains with a maximum of eight, six or four coaches, as they often do now. What prospect is there that the Strategic Rail Authority will introduce such a programme in the near future?
    Dr. Howells: This is a very important question. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know that we have just seen the largest ever orders placed for new rolling stock in the history of the railways in this country. We have also seen the difficulties of trying to run a lot of the trains on the existing infrastructure, not least because of the inadequacy of the power supply system, especially in the old southern region. He is right to raise the issue of lengthening platforms. We must look very carefully at that one. The information that I have received suggests that many of the associated costs relate to regulation that is very difficult to explain or rationalise and which should be slashed. It should be easier to build extensions to platforms, not more difficult, as that would increase capacity on the trains to which he referred.

    West Coast Main Line
    Tony Cunningham: What progress is being made on the upgrade of the west coast main line. [145871]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): The upgrade of the west coast main line is making good progress and is expected to deliver significant improvements in journey times this year and next.
    Tony Cunningham: I welcome that answer, but I hope that the new lines that are being laid in the upgrade are British made. Referring to journey times, does my right hon. Friend appreciate that one of the greatest problems is the greatly extended journey time during the upgrade? There is great suspicion that the reason for that problem has nothing to do with the upgrade, but more to do with avoiding paying the compensation that companies would have to pay for late-arriving trains. Will he look into the whole issue of timetabling?
    Mr. Darling: Yes, I will. It is important that there should be realistic and accurate timetables. In relation to my hon. Friend's first point, I think that I am right in saying that most of the steel going into Britain's railways is British. On journey times, he will know that, when the upgrade is completed next year, the journey time to Carlisle, for example, on the west coast main line will be reduced by about half an hour. I am afraid that, in the major works that are being carried out on the line—the first major works in almost 30 years—there will inevitably be some degree of disruption. Hon. Members are well aware of that. I believe, though, that once the upgrade is completed and we have the new trains that Virgin is introducing—a number of which are now appearing on the west coast main line—there will be a qualitatively better service on the west coast than there has been for 30 years.
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: I warmly welcome the huge sums of money that have been

    151
    poured into the west coast main line: my constituency has greatly benefited from that. Does the Secretary of State agree, however, that as well as improving the signalling and track, the upgrade must, and should continue to, include, first, car parking at railway stations to encourage people to use rail; and, secondly, the extension of platforms to enable longer and larger trains to be put on to lines to carry people who want to travel by rail?
    Mr. Darling: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Car parks at stations are extremely important if we are to encourage people to leave their cars and go by train. My hon. Friend the Minister referred to the bureaucracy that stood in the way of lengthening platforms. When one looks at that more closely, it is clear that extending the platform by a few feet does not necessitate upgrading the entire station. One or two people thought that it did, which made the whole thing daft.
    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his general welcome for the large amount of money—some £7.5 billion—that will be spent on the west coast main line. That investment is long overdue. I am grateful, too, that he takes such a realistic attitude towards the undoubted disruption that his constituents have had to endure. I hope that very shortly they will see the fruits of all that work.
    Mr. Eric Martlew: As my right hon. Friend will know, I have taken a particular interest in the west coast main line for more than a decade, and we are now at a point where we will see improvements. Yesterday, the first Pendolino train went from Euston to Glasgow. That service will be a great benefit to my constituents. However, will my right hon. Friend comment on the decision not to lay extra track in the Trent valley, which will create congestion and delays on the west coast main line? I understand that that decision was taken after the rail regulator intervened with Network Rail.
    Mr. Darling: On the first point, my hon. Friend will know that once the upgrade is completed next year, more than half an hour will be taken off the journey time to Carlisle. I am glad that he mentioned the arrival in Glasgow of the first Pendolino train—I am told that it was eight minutes early, which is a shining example to the rest of the trains going up and down the west coast main line.
    In relation to the four tracks through the Trent valley, the regulator, the Strategic Rail Authority and Network Rail are discussing whether that work is immediately necessary. We are conscious of the fact that, as my hon. Friend will know, Railtrack promised to deliver the project for £2.5 billion, which was a hopelessly, wildly optimistic estimate. At one point, the cost soared to £13 billion. Even at the current £7.5 billion, it represents a very substantial investment, and we are all duty bound to ask ourselves what is necessary to deliver these journey time improvements, bearing in mind the fact that a lot of money has to be spent on other parts of the network, too.

    Motorway Noise
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: What his policy is on the introduction of quieter road surfaces on motorways. [145872]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): The Highways Agency always uses quieter road surfaces when carrying out resurfacing work on England's motorways and trunk roads. On 1 April last year, I announced a timetable for resurfacing all sections of concrete road on our strategic road network with noise-reducing material in order to provide relief from traffic noise for households living alongside noisy trunk roads. That work will be progressed in line with the priorities that were identified, which provide for the earliest relief to the worst affected properties, subject to the availability of funding.
    Mr. Robathan: Unfortunately, that will not reassure my constituents who live near the M1 in Narborough, Whetstone, Cosby and elsewhere. They were expecting to have the Ml resurfaced with quieter material this summer, but it has been put off for up to three years—because of value management work, according to the Highways Agency. Yet the Minister told me in a written answer that the resurfacing project is not the result of value management work. Will he tell me who is right— he or the Highways Agency? Will he get his act and his policy together with the Highways Agency; and will he reassure my constituents along the M1 south of junction 20 that they will have a quieter road surface?
    Mr. Jamieson: I would say very gently to the hon. Gentleman that, had it not been for this Government bringing in the new quieter road surfaces, there would have been no quieter road surfaces at all, whenever the surface was relaid. Work has to be carried out all round the country on the trunk roads and the major motorway system, including the M1 between junctions 20 and 21—I appreciate that many of the villages all the way down to Lutterworth are affected as well—but it has to be
    done in order of priority. Priority is given to road surfaces that are breaking up, and to locations where road safety is an issue, where there are potholes or where the skid value of the road has deteriorated. We carefully analyse each road that needs doing according to that list of priorities, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, although it is not possible this year, he will be in the three-year programme from 2005–06, when his constituents will be able to expect the Government to provide a quieter road for them.
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: Will my hon. Friend meet the parish council in Bredgar when he visits my constituency shortly? The M2 runs alongside that area, and there have been campaigns against the noise for 10 years. It is an echo chamber. It seems to miss all the criteria that we apply to these problems, but the noise is unbearable to anyone walking there.
    Mr. Jamieson: A lot of meetings seem to be resulting from our questions today. Of course, I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend and I know what a strong advocate he has been on road and transport issues in his constituency. I would be happy to meet him, because I realise that this is a problem—just as it is in Leicester—for the people living alongside a motorway. Noise can be extremely intrusive.
    Mr. John Redwood: Can the Minister tell me, either now or in writing, when the M4 between junctions 8/9 and 12 might be resurfaced with a quieter material, which we would welcome? If he is planning an expansion of that motorway, could that be linked to the introduction of sound barriers to give some relief to residents?
    Mr. Jamieson: The Highways Agency looks very carefully at the environmental impact of any improvements that take place on our roads, particularly the impact of noise on local residents. I will write to the right hon. Gentleman on the matter of the M4. As he knows, certain stretches have been resurfaced with a quieter material, but this work has to be done in order of priority. Priority has to be given to surfaces that have deteriorated, and we cannot just resurface roads that are still in good condition. I am sure that he appreciates that in terms of value for money for the taxpayer, but I shall certainly write to him about the sections of the road that he mentioned.

    Regional Airports
    Mr. Andy Reed: What steps he is taking to reduce aircraft noise at regional airports. [145874]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): Our preference is that local solutions should be devised for local problems wherever possible. The White Paper—"The Future of Air Transport"—sets out the basic framework within which local controls should operate., and as soon as parliamentary time permits, we will legislate to strengthen the powers of airport operators to combat noise.
    Mr. Reed: I welcome my hon. Friend's answer. I am sure that he is aware that night-time noise at East Midlands airport is a major concern for a large number of my constituents. This is a complex issue, and much of the work being done by the Loughborough research centre at the university shows that the number of people awakened by aircraft noise at night is not as high as we might suspect. However, a large number of my constituents are concerned about this. Will my hon. Friend set out in greater detail what stringent noise controls are to be introduced to ensure that recent improvements are built on, so that the many people who feel strongly about this issue are reassured about the future growth of the airport?
    Mr. McNulty: My hon. Friend will know that a fairly stringent package of noise constraint measures already exists. At this stage, in the light of the publication of the White Paper, it is entirely up to East Midlands airport
    154
    to come forward with proposals on how it expects to grow in the context of that package. I repeat that we want to secure a local solution wherever possible. In addition, bullet point 4 of paragraph 3.11 of the White Paper states that we will consider national designation
    "if there is evidence of a major noise problem not being dealt with adequately through local controls."
    In the first instance, however, it is up to East Midlands airport to respond to what we have said in the White Paper.
    Mr. James Plaskitt: Is my hon. Friend aware of the situation at Coventry airport? There is currently no regular passenger service from there, but Thompsonfly has now announced that it intends to launch a budget airline operation from there in March. This has been done without any local consultation or consent, yet the service will rely heavily on regular night flying. This will represent a considerable environmental onslaught on many of my constituents. What powers does the Department have to help us to deal with this situation?
    Mr. McNulty: In the first instance, we would seek a local solution as any airport develops. In the last resort, however, if we feel that local solutions are not working, we can designate them nationally and take a far more stringent and legislatively focused reaction to noise and other environmental issues. That is a last resort, however, and we urge people to secure a solution locally in the first instance.

    Roads (Colchester)
    Bob Russell: When he expects work will start on the junction of the A12 Colchester northern bypass and the northern approach road. [145875]
    The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Kim Howells): The Highways Agency approved the developer's scheme for a new junction in July 2003. The planning applications are still being considered by the Colchester borough council.
    Bob Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. May I urge him to prevail on the Highways Agency to work with the national health service, which will be the principal beneficiary of the junction through the release of land to enable development to take place on a former hospital site and adjoining land? The borough council is the second major beneficiary, because of the employment and housing prospects. Third but not least is the new stadium for Colchester United football club, which is dependent on this junction. I urge the Minister and his colleagues to work with the Highways Agency and the NHS to get the junction approved sooner rather than later.
    Dr. Howells: Yes, indeed, I would be very glad to do that. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will tell the council to get a move on—especially given that the Liberals are the largest party on it.

  The Minister for the Cabinet Office was asked—
  CABINET OFFICE

    Employment Regulation
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: When he next expects to meet the chairman of the Better Regulation Task Force to discuss employment regulation. [145856]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander): I have regular meetings with the chairman of the Better Regulation Task Force to discuss all aspects of the better regulation agenda.
    Mr. Bellingham: When the Minister next meets the chairman of the Better Regulation Task Force, will he discuss with him the UK's individual opt-out from the working time directive? Does he agree with the CBI and the Forum of Private Business, which have recently stated that the opt-out is vital for the UK's competitiveness? Or does he agree with his Socialist colleagues in the European Parliament and Commissioner Diamantopoulou, who both want to scrap the individual opt-out as soon as possible? On whose side is he?
    Mr. Alexander: I certainly agree that the working time directive opt-out is important, not just for the United Kingdom but for several member states. The recent European Commission communication does not say that the opt-out should go; it identifies some abuses, and asks how those can be addressed. On the point of view of the CBI, however, I would certainly agree with its director-general in his concluding interview of the year, in which he stated:
    "I am very pleased, well done to the Government you know, low inflation, low unemployment and some sustainable growth in an area of low interest rates. So probably the most successful economy in the developed world all up".
    Mr. Peter Pike: Is it not important that when we look at removing burdens, we do not equate that with removing worker protection, because many Conservative Members equate the two?
    Mr. Alexander: I find myself in full agreement with my hon. Friend. This Government make no apology for paid holidays, time off to attend to family matters, and, of course, the national minimum wage and the working time directive.
    Mr. Oliver Heald: The Minister will be aware that the TUC has today spoken of the massive hidden unemployment in Britain and has called on the Government to get a grip. Is not the reason for that that the Government are moving people from unemployment on to sickness benefits, thereby hiding the true extent of unemployment? Is not the background to that that the Government have so laden businesses with extra regulation that they are not producing the extra private sector jobs that are necessary?
    Mr. Alexander: I hardly know where to begin in answering that question. First, on the point of taking lessons from the Opposition on employment, they will of course be aware that there are historically high levels of employment in this country at this stage. Secondly, it is of course a matter of record that we have both low inflation and high employment at this stage. In relation to moving people off unemployment and on to disability benefit, again, the last people to lecture the Government are the Conservatives.

    UN Technology Summit
    Mr. David Stewart: If he will make a statement on the recent UN technology summit in Geneva on the digital divide. [145857]
    Derek Wyatt: If he will make a statement on the recent UN technology summit on the digital divide. [145860]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander): My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services represented the Government at a recent world summit on the information society in Geneva. The summit developed a plan of action to ensure that the benefits of information and communication technologies flow to all in society.
    Mr. Stewart: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is crucial to use technology to benefit billions of people in the developing world? There should not have to be a choice between pentiums and penicillin; we should be thinking about how to use the power of the internet to benefit the poor and the dispossessed.
    Mr. Alexander: I entirely agree. The real challenge is to ensure that new technologies do not exacerbate historical divides, and that is as true in the United Kingdom as it is in the world as a whole. I am proud of this Government's record of tackling the digital divide, not just in my hon. Friend's constituency but through international initiatives such as the summits attended by the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services.
    Mr. Wyatt: My hon. Friend may not know that I won a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association bursary to examine the digital divide, and travelled to Mozambique, Tanzania and Zambia. I concluded that what was needed to tackle the digital divide was a solar powered computer, which could be made in Africa for under £100. Will my hon. Friend use his best endeavours to persuade the Commonwealth Development Corporation and the Government to run a competition for that purpose?
    Mr. Alexander: I know of my hon. Friend's longstanding commitment to this issue. I will certainly think about it, and I should be happy to correspond with him.
    Mr. Richard Allan: Does the Minister agree that the questions "Who runs the internet?" and "How?", which are on the United Nations summit agenda, are increasingly important as the internet becomes an essential part of all our lives? To assist in that debate, will he undertake to publish as clear a statement as possible about the United Kingdom Government's policy in relation to the UN, the International Telecommunication Union and all the other bodies involved in deciding how the internet is run?
    Mr. Alexander: As the hon. Gentleman will know, a huge amount of work is being done not just domestically but internationally through a range of organisations. I shall try to ensure that the e-envoy writes to him about his observations.
    Michael Fabricant: I congratulate British Telecom on lowering trigger levels, which has led to an expansion of broadband throughout the UK; but is the Minister aware that according to the International Telecommunication Union, based in Geneva, take-up has fallen in Britain in relation to that in other countries? We have in fact dropped from fifth to 18th place. What role can the Government play to encourage those with computers whose areas provide broadband to transfer to it from dial-up?
    Mr. Alexander: I certainly think there is a role for enlightened Members of Parliament, who can speak in public debates about the benefits that can accrue to individual constituents from broadband, but I also think we should retain a sense of scale and proportion. Price is no longer a barrier in the UK—broadband prices have fallen to competitive levels in international terms—and there has been an exponential growth in the broadband market in recent years: 80 per cent. of the UK population now has access to the mass-market service. I particularly welcomed BT's announcement in November that it would make a further tranche of exchanges possible.
    Chris Bryant: Do the Government accept that there is still a significant digital divide between rich and poor parts of the country? Many poor rural and former mining constituencies, in particular, still have no access to digital terrestrial television. When will the Government ensure that freeview is available throughout the country?
    Mr. Alexander: My hon. Friend has raised two important points. The first was about digital television, in which we are one of the world leaders. We continue to make progress in that regard. The second concerned digital inclusion. We are not resting on our laurels following our significant success with broadband; we are looking more deeply at the barriers in communities such as my hon. Friend's that prevent people from adopting the internet. One barrier is caused by income levels, a second by age, and there are also cultural barriers. That is why I was so pleased with our "Get Started" campaign last year, which involved harnessing the 6,000 UK online centres in the country to tackle the digital divide of which my hon. Friend speaks.

    Policy Hub
    Mr. Edward Leigh: What evidence he has collected on the extent to which the launch of policy hub has led to improvements in policy making; and what plans there are to evaluate policy hub. [145858]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander): The policy hub website was launched in March 2002 to support better policy making and policy evaluation. Since its launch, usage has grown to over 5,000 visits per month. The policy hub continually seeks views from users and key stakeholders. As a result, an improved site will be launched in February 2004.
    Mr. Leigh: The Minister will recall that in the Treasury minute response to the Public Accounts Committee report the Cabinet Office promised to monitor Departments' use of the hub. How much have they used it since March 2002, which Departments have not used it and why not, and what is the Cabinet Office doing to monitor uneven take-up?
    Mr. Alexander: The strategy unit collects evidence on monthly usage of the policy hub. Usage grew more than 100 per cent. between June and November 2003. Given that the hon. Gentleman is Chairman of the PAC, I will of course be happy to write to him on his specific request in relation to individual Departments. We are at present evaluating the hub on the basis of the number of visits to the website.
    Mr. George Foulkes: May I be, I hope, disarmingly honest and admit that I am not as au fait with the policy hub, the digital divide and the Better Regulation Task Force as some of my colleagues seem to be? Will the Minister consider ways of bringing some of us up to speed, if possible using broadband, which I have recently installed?
    Mr. Alexander: As I say, we are not declaring victory on the digital divide yet. My right hon. Friend made a serious point in saying that one of the challenges is to ensure that some of the more experienced Members of the House also benefit from the opportunities of the digital revolution. That is why we are taking forward our work in a number of online centres across the country. If he faces challenges in using his new broadband service, I encourage him to travel to one of his local online centres, where help and advice will be available.

    Business Regulation
    Bob Spink: What action he is taking to reduce the burden of regulation on business. [145859]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander): The Government's updated regulatory reform action plan

    159
    announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his pre-Budget report has over 650 deregulatory measures to benefit business, charities and the public services. Over 240 of those reforms have been delivered by Government Departments since the original version of the action plan was published in 2002.
    Bob Spink: Since much of the regulation originates from Europe and this regulation causes massive unemployment, particularly hidden unemployment, is it
    160
    not time we looked again at our various agreements and opt-outs with the European Community and, for example, withdrew from the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy?
    Mr. Alexander: The UK has been leading the drive for better regulation in Europe. That is why I recently met the Spanish public administration Minister to press the case for further initiatives. It is fair to say that international observers recognise that Britain has played a leading role on the issue of better regulation, not just in the European Union but around the world.

Sky Marshals
12.32 pm
Mrs. Theresa May: (Urgent Question) To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the introduction of sky marshals on flights from the United Kingdom.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): The United Kingdom aviation security regime is one of the most developed in the world and was further tightened in the aftermath of the 11 September attacks in the United States. As the House would expect, as part of their overall counter-terrorism strategy, the Government keep aviation security under permanent review and adjust measures to be taken by airlines, as and when necessary.
The measures that are available to us to use take various forms, ranging from different types of screening and searching at airports, through protection of aircraft while on the ground, to measures implemented in-flight, including steps to prevent any takeover of the aircraft cockpit, and, where appropriate, the deployment of covert armed police capability, known as sky marshals, announced by the Government on 19 December 2002.
As the Home Secretary and I announced on 28 December, in response to the present heightened state of alert in the United States, additional security measures on the ground and in the air have been put in place for UK airlines operations in the USA and elsewhere. That is judged a responsible and prudent step at the present time, but the continuing need for those measures will be kept under review. Sky marshals will be deployed where appropriate. It is the Government's policy, for obvious security reasons, not to comment in detail on when and where additional security measures are being deployed.
The House will recognise that there is an increased threat and we have to deal with that in a balanced and proportionate way. Our objective is to ensure that we deploy all the security measures available to us, as and when appropriate, while at the same time enabling people to go about their day-to-day business.
Mrs. May: I thank the Secretary of State for his reply. It is indeed an important issue that cannot and should not be taken lightly. Of course, airline passengers want to know when they board a plane that every effort has been made to ensure the safety of that flight. However, over the past 10 days a somewhat confusing picture has emerged of the approach being taken by the Government. We were told in headlines last week that sky marshals would be flying on planes to the USA that day or the next day, and that they had been in training for some months. It then emerged that the Government had not discussed the matter properly with the airlines or the pilots, and that it was not clear under what circumstances sky marshals would be used or whether the pilot would continue to have ultimate responsibility for the flight concerned. In the past few days, the suggestion has emerged that the Government's decision was taken only because of pressure from the United States Government.
We all understand that this issue touches on security matters and the use of intelligence, and that the Secretary of State is limited in some of the remarks that
162
he can make to the House. But people who travel on UK airlines, both staff and passengers, deserve to know as much as possible in order to reassure them about the safety of those flights. The confusion that has emerged in the past few days has not helped passengers, and continuing confusion could impact on people's propensity to fly. Will the Secretary of State therefore explain now to the House why talks were not held with pilots and airlines to agree operating procedures before the announcement on the use of sky marshals was made?
Lack of consultation meant that the Secretary of State had to announce on the "Today" programme that pilots would be told about sky marshals on their planes. Will the pilot of any plane continue to have ultimate responsibility for the flight, and will that include refusing to fly if they are not happy with the presence of a sky marshal on the plane? One of the main concerns raised by pilots and by some members of the public has been the use of guns on board planes. What comfort can the Secretary of State give on this matter, and particularly on the type of ammunition to be used?
It is reported today that the Metropolitan police has provided 20 officers for training. How many have completed their training, and how long did it last? What is the limit of sky marshals' actions? If there is a non-terrorist-related incident on a plane, will the sky marshal be expected to get involved, or not? It is also reported today that Toby Harris, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Authority, has raised the question of liability. Can the Secretary of State confirm that no responsibility for liability will fall on the Metropolitan Police Authority, or on any other authority that provides officers as sky marshals? We all want to ensure the safety and security of all those who use planes, both staff and passengers, but it is imperative that the use of sky marshals does not lead to a reduction in security measures on the ground. In a sense, the sky marshal is the last resort—it is better to ensure that a terrorist does not get on the plane in the first place.
Underlying this whole issue over the past few days has been the question of trust in the Government. On the one hand, the Government would have us believe that the use of sky marshals is the result of a well-prepared and thought-through plan, but how can people trust such an assurance when they see the Government failing to consult properly on the proposal and failing to have the answers to a number of real, practical questions? If, on the other hand, the Government have put this proposal in place and have been forced into accepting sky marshals earlier than intended as a result of the actions of the United States Administration, they should be honest with people about that. The travelling public deserve no less.
Mr. Darling: It would be much more preferable if we could deal with this matter on a bipartisan basis because, as the hon. Lady rightly recognises, a great deal rides on it. I should make it clear that the first line of defence is to ensure that the security at airports and surrounding aircraft is as tight as it possibly can be. In the past few days, I have made the point time and again that we have tightened security at all UK airports; indeed, many passengers checking in will have noticed that there have been delays from time to time. Unfortunately, that is a result of increased security—screening individual passengers and baggage, and other measures. The

163
deployment of sky marshals can be only one part of a raft of measures that we have put in place to try to prevent the possibility of somebody getting on an aeroplane and then being in a position to try to take it over.
We announced our intention to train and, if necessary, deploy sky marshals in December 2002. That has therefore been the Government's policy for more than a year before the announcement that the Home Secretary and I made on 28 December, so the idea that the policy was developed at short notice is simply not true.
The hon. Lady asked about consultation. Over the past year we have had many discussions with the aviation industry, including the airline pilots union. It has always been made clear that, for perfectly obvious reasons, the pilot would remain in charge of the aircraft.
As to the information made available, the Government will continue to keep people informed as much as they possibly can. However, the hon. Lady recognises that inevitably it is neither possible nor right for the Government to provide a running commentary on everything that is happening at a particular time. Neither can the Government allow themselves to provide information that might disclose to the very people about whom we are concerned not only what we do know, but what we possibly do not yet know. I therefore hope that she will understand that the Government will not be able to answer some of the questions that she asks now or in the future.
The hon. Lady is right that the Government intend to keep people informed. That is why the Home Secretary and I made our announcement at the end of December—because of the heightened security in the United States and, indeed, other parts of the world. We shall put in place every measure we can to ensure that the safety of aircraft in this country is as high as it possibly can be. We will continue to do that. Unfortunately, as I have said before, it is likely that this state of alert is likely to last for some considerable time. I am afraid that it is a fact of life and a consequence of the age in which we live. We will continue to be vigilant and to do whatever is necessary. We will also, of course, continue to keep the House informed.
John Thurso: Does the Secretary of State accept—I am sure that he will—that concern for the safety of air passengers is shared on both sides of the House and that any measure to counter terrorism should be given serious consideration? Does he also accept that the effort to prevent terrorist acts on aeroplanes should—and, indeed, must—remain primarily focused on ground security? I would be grateful if he would reiterate that commitment.
Does the Secretary of State accept that BALPA is quite right to be extremely concerned about the potential risk of introducing weapons on to planes? If the Government—or the United States—insist that sky marshals should be deployed, will he ensure that protocols are agreed between airlines and pilots to make it clear that the captain remains in control and in command at all times, as well as being fully apprised at all times about what is happening on his aircraft? Protocols should also ensure that only fully trained
164
police officers would be used in the role, which should help to reassure passengers that the matter is being dealt with in a professional manner.
Mr. Darling: First, I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman that ground security is paramount both here and in other parts of the world. Furthermore, sky marshals will be deployed only when we believe, on the basis of available evidence, that it is justified. It represents only one part of a wide range of measures that are available to us.
Of course the sky marshals will be highly trained. They are already highly trained and will be trained further for specific operations on aircraft. I fully understand the reluctance of pilots and the concern of others about the deployment of such people on aircraft. However, one thing infinitely worse than having a sky marshal on a plane is having a terrorist on the plane who is about to enter the cockpit. Many people recognise that in certain circumstances, based on available intelligence, it may be necessary to deploy sky marshals.
I note that the general secretary of the airline pilots union said on television this morning that it no longer objected to the deployment of sky marshals, but remains concerned about protocols to ensure that the captain will remain fully in charge. I have made it absolutely clear on several occasions that that is the case. The House may be interested to know—there has been discussion in the newspapers—that British Airways has written to me to confirm that it does not object to the deployment of sky marshals where appropriate. Its concern is exactly the same as that of the rest of us—to ensure that we have an appropriate level of security on aircraft. That is what we shall do.
John McDonnell: The intensive effort made by the Government over the past few years in respect of perimeter security at airports, especially at Heathrow, has been widely acknowledged. The Government should be congratulated on that, but it is regrettable that we are not tackling the issue on a cross-party basis. There is a divergence of views about the role of air marshals, but it is accepted that they can play a role as part of an integrated system. Will my right hon. Friend meet a cross-party delegation of Members of Parliament with aviation interests to explain the role of air marshals in that integrated system? Such a meeting would allow us to discuss in more detail some other issues in connection with perimeter security, especially at airports in the developing world. What steps are the Government taking to give countries in the developing world further support and assistance in this matter?
Mr. Darling: Of course I am happy to meet colleagues, to keep them informed and to explain what the Government are doing. I am grateful for the welcome that my hon. Friend has given to the Government's efforts. Inevitably, one consequence of our inability to provide what might be called a running commentary on what is going on is that the field is left open for all sorts of speculation. However, I am glad that my hon. Friend recognises that the Government are taking the necessary and appropriate action. We will continue to do so.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I commend the general substance of the Secretary of State's remarks, but why cannot he declare war on jargon as well as on terrorism? Why must the people involved be called sky marshals? Why cannot we use the English language properly and call them armed guards or security guards?
Mr. Darling: I have some sympathy with that proposition, but the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman on these matters, used the term "sky marshals", so, to be helpful to her, I shall explain what they really are. They are, in fact, police officers.
Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: Will the deployment of air marshals be restricted to the US, or will their deployment be widened to include domestic and European air traffic? If so, I suggest that that would pose a security problem in this country. Also, who will pay for the air marshals?
Mr. Darling: As I have just explained to the House, the Government look at intelligence several times every day. The measures—such as sky marshals or increased security—that we deploy will vary from time to time and from place to place. However, I repeat what I have made clear in the past: the Government will not comment on where, if, or when sky marshals are to be deployed. I hope that the House will understand that. I can tell my hon. Friend that the costs of the sky marshals will be met by the Government.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the Secretary of State say whether these armed guards have been deployed yet, or does their deployment lie in the future? Given that the policy has been under discussion for more than 12 months, will he say why the protocols have not yet been agreed?
Mr. Darling: On the latter point, I told the House a few moments ago that there have been considerable discussions with the airline industry over the past year. On the right hon. and learned Gentleman's first point, I have nothing to add to what I have just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe). For perfectly obvious reasons, which I hope the House will understand, we will not explain what action we intend to take or when we intend to take it. The reason is that to do so would provide the sort of information that might be of great help to the very people about whom we are concerned.
Alan Simpson: I, too, am disappointed that there is no bipartisan approach to this matter, as I expected there to be widespread support for measures that would increase security on the ground and in cockpits and improve security for passengers. However, my specific concern is whether the sky marshals will be armed. Most members of the public would welcome the presence of police officers when that is justified by intelligence, but does my right hon. Friend understand the concern felt by pilots and the public that the inclusion of the use of guns in the remit given to sky
166
marshals will result in an increased risk that air travel will be turned into a wild west in the sky, rather than in greater security for the air-travelling public?
Mr. Darling: No, I do not agree with my hon. Friend on that point. The police officers in question will be armed and will act as the last line of defence if someone tries to take over an aircraft. That is an extremely serious situation and that is why the police officers will be armed. My hon. Friend made a similar point to that made by the hon. Member for Maidenhead, but it is worth bearing it in mind that at the moment all flights are operating as usual. Even when the decision had to be taken to ground flights to Washington and the middle east, the vast majority of flights went ahead as normal. All the evidence shows, as we discussed when I published the White Paper on aviation, that people are continuing to fly. It is important that we all send the message that although we live in a time of heightened security and we need to take exceptional action on occasion, people can go about their daily business and continue to fly when they need to do so.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the Secretary of State ensure that we develop international protocols for the deployment of armed police officers on aircraft? Does he agree that sky marshals on incoming flights should always be public servants—police officers or the equivalent—and that private security guards should not be armed on flights? That could have security implications, and it would be better to ensure that only trained police officers play that role.
Mr. Darling: We have some experience of that. The hon. Gentleman is right—we want to ensure that those who act as covert police officers are highly trained, and we will continue to ensure that they are.
Brian White: My right hon. Friend will be aware that since 1997 one of my constituents has been trying to bring to the Government's attention—in private—some serious defects in the baggage screening process. For obvious reasons, I shall not highlight those defects. Would my right hon. Friend be prepared to meet my constituent to talk about those issues? If a passenger does not wish to travel on a plane with a sky marshal, would he lose the fare for that flight or would other flights be made available?
Mr. Darling: I recall the correspondence that my hon. Friend mentions, but my recollection is that we did not come to the same conclusion as his constituent. I or one of my colleagues will be happy to talk to my hon. Friend further about the matter. As I said earlier, it would not be a good idea to make a general announcement. The decision to deploy a sky marshal, or put any other security measure in place, is not taken lightly. It is made only when the circumstances justify it, and we cannot make specific announcements because that would play into the hands of those about whom we are concerned. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand and accept that the Government are doing everything that they reasonably can. Most people seem to accept such measures as a fact of life that we will have to live with for

167
some time and that at times there is a limit to what the Government or an airline can say about security measures.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Will the Secretary of State accept from me that the public will on the whole be reassured by his statement? Can he intensify the professional discussions that his Department has had with the International Civil Aviation Organisation, the European Civil Aviation Conference, the Civil Aviation Authority and BALPA, so that we get the best professional advice available on a matter that profoundly divides the aviation community? Has he taken a view on the merits or otherwise of arming flight deck air crew?
Mr. Darling: No, I have not taken a view on the hon. Gentleman's latter point, but I am grateful to him for his general welcome for my announcement. Most hon. Members appear to welcome it, although it was not entirely clear what view the hon. Member for Maidenhead was taking. On his other point, the Department keeps in touch with international bodies constantly on the issue.
Mr. Stephen McCabe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is an interesting sign of the times that Labour Members are putting public safety at the top of the agenda, but the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) is putting the capricious claims of a trade union at the top of her agenda? When it comes to legitimate concerns and anxieties, may I take it that the Government have looked closely at the experience of other countries that have been forced to adopt such security measures for some time?
Mr. Darling: Yes, the Government follow closely what is happening in other parts of the world and keep all such matters under review. I understand the concerns of the pilots and I believe that they can be met. Most people—including the pilots' representative on the BBC this morning—accept that the age in which we live means that measures must be taken, unfortunately, that might have been ruled out of hand a few years ago. The Government's job is to ensure that we use every possible means to stop people who should not get on to an aircraft doing so, and also—where necessary and based on the intelligence we have—to deploy other measures. Most people who fly will be reassured by the fact that the Government are keeping such matters under review and will take whatever steps are appropriate.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Was the Secretary of State as surprised as I was by the suggestion by a representative of the pilots that if a sky marshal is on a plane the pilot should know his identity and where he is sitting? Will the Secretary of State undertake to ensure that any protocol agreed makes it clear that pilots will never know the identity and location of sky
168
marshals? Otherwise, the first thing that a terrorist would do would be to threaten the pilot with death unless he disclosed the whereabouts of the sky marshal.
Mr. Darling: That sounds to me like one of those matters in which it would be best for me to note what the hon. Gentleman says.
David Cairns: If callers to radio phone-in programmes are any measure of the success of a Government policy—usually not—I can tell my right hon. Friend that the overwhelming majority of callers and e-mailers to the Lesley Riddoch programme on Radio Scotland yesterday, on which I spoke about sky marshals, favoured the presence of armed sky marshals on flights. Does not the presence of armed sky marshals on Qantas flights out of Sydney to Singapore demonstrate that it is a global response to an international terrorist threat and not, as some have claimed, the British Government caving in to American pressure? That myth is peddled by the same people who present the USA as a greater threat than the international terrorists.
Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right that all countries and airlines face this threat. How we respond depends on the individual circumstances and the intelligence that Governments receive.
Mr. John Greenway: Having suggested this proposal to the former Home Secretary more than two years ago, I welcome what the Secretary of State has said, although it is disappointing that the protocols are not in place. That is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) was trying to make. [Laughter.] If hon. Members listened, they might understand. Attention is currently focused on outbound flights, but I reiterate the importance of ensuring the same level of security on inbound flights. If sky marshals are on an outbound flight, are they likely to be deployed on the return flight?
Mr. Darling: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying what the hon. Member for Maidenhead meant to ask. The decision to deploy armed police officers on a flight depends on the intelligence and the assessment of the threat that we make. As I have said, it would be wiser not to go into details about when and where such people may be deployed.
John Mann: The TUC and British trade unions have always been loyal and reliable allies of any British Government at times of war, and that also applies to the war on terrorism. The airline pilots union is a well-informed, reliable and efficient union. Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that it will have full and direct access to him and his Department in the coming months, so that it can continue to provide its expertise and advice on this issue?
Mr. Darling: I am meeting the airline pilots union this afternoon, so it will have all the access that it wants.
Michael Fabricant: Just for the record, the British Airline Pilots Association is an association not a union. Although the association has

169
said that guns and pressurised cabins do not mix, does the Secretary of State agree that in at least two instances, once with El Al and once with Royal Jordanian Airlines, sky marshals have been used to prevent a hijack? Is not it also the case that with the use of high-technology, low-velocity guns, sadly and occasionally a pressurised cabin would be depressurised if an event were to occur?
Mr. Darling: Police officers are trained to operate on aircraft and part of that training means that they have to take into account the difficult conditions they find. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the correction in his first point; no doubt, the pilots themselves would be the first to point out that they are members of an association, not a union.

Correctional Services Review
1.1 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the next phase of our strategy to improve the effectiveness of the criminal justice system and, in particular, of correctional services.
Our objective has been to reduce crime and to transform radically the performance of the Prison Service and the probation service, and the services working in partnership with them. Since 1997, we have undertaken a unique programme of reform and investment in both services. We have provided 14,700 more prison places, including seven new prisons, and this year we are providing £900 million more in real terms. There has been a 50 per cent. increase in probation funding, and a 30 per cent. increase in frontline staff. Since 1996–97, there has been an increase of 4,300 additional staff in the probation service alone.
We do not accept the counsel of despair that suggests that offenders cannot be turned away from crime. The whole objective of correctional services must be to prevent reoffending, as well as to provide punishment and protection. Today, we are publishing our report, "Reducing Crime, Changing Lives", which sets out a progressive agenda for the future and the next steps to modernise and reform correctional services. I have placed a copy of the report in the Vote Office, together with the report from Patrick Carter. We are grateful to him and his colleagues for the work that they have done, on which we have drawn extensively in the proposals before the House today.
Prison and rehabilitation after custody can be made to work only if those subject to punishment are forced to address their behaviour. Sending more people to prison but seeing more return, only to reoffend again, is unacceptable. Addressing the causes is, therefore, essential for success.
Together with the Department of Health, we have adopted a radical new policy for health investment to tackle a range of problems, from mental health to drug misuse. This year, more than 50,000 prisoners have received clinical detoxification. 5,000 are undertaking drug rehabilitation programmes, and 40 per cent. of all prisoners have signed voluntary drug compacts. In addition, through education, training and work programmes, we have dramatically changed the opportunity for those in prison to redeem their behaviour and attitude. In 1997, figures on the educational achievement of prisoners were not collected. This year, almost 50,000 prisoners will gain basic skills qualifications and, with the Department for Work and Pensions, we have put in place the custody to work programme, which is already showing signs of significant success.
Last year, 30 per cent. of prisoners entered work or training—a transformation from the past—and 25 per cent. of prisoners had a job on release, compared to 10 per cent. a decade ago. The creation of the Youth Justice Board five years ago and of the new national probation service in 2001 has made a significant difference. The YJB has been responsible for developing the intensive supervision and surveillance programme as an alternative to secure accommodation. We are now

171
looking to even more imaginative ways of using a combination of satellite tracking with peer mentoring to work with offenders in the community.
The probation service has developed drug testing and treatment orders—the first effective community sentence for drug abusers—which are now being supported by the criminal justice intervention programme. The service is developing the intensive change and control programme, which is a community-based sentence for adult offenders. There is also real momentum behind the restorative justice programme, to encourage responsibility, to address offending behaviour and to make amends to the victim where appropriate.
This month, we are piloting a radical new approach to custodial sentencing. Kirkham for men and Morton Hall for women will be the first establishments to experiment with periods of intermittent custody, such as prison at weekends.
The new sentencing framework introduced in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, is central to reducing crime and, therefore, reoffending. We have introduced new mandatory life sentences for the most heinous crimes; custody minus and custody plus, covering a range of crimes; and much tougher punishment and enforcement for breaches. I want to see robust intensive community programmes replace ineffective short custodial sentences in a way that allows us to take decisive action where breaches occur.
Those reforms will help to deliver considerable improvement in performance of the correctional services, by ensuring both joined-up policy and joined-up delivery, but we believe that we must take further steps for improvement and for more radical progress. Together with the Department for Constitutional Affairs, we will look to link the enforcement of fines and fixed penalty notices as a first deterrent, prior to the need for community or custodial sentencing. We will examine the potential for linking fines with the ability to pay as an alternative to custody. In building on existing reforms, our strategy will place renewed focus on the appropriate intervention for the specific crime.
If we are to deliver further transformation, however, we need significant organisational change. That of course includes the management of the services themselves, including the rooting out of unacceptable practices, such as racism and bullying. That is why I am announcing today the establishment of a single service to manage offenders.
The new National Offender Management Service will have direct responsibility for the punishment and rehabilitation of adult offenders both in custody and in the community. I am pleased to announce that Martin Narey, former director general of the Prison Service, will be the chief executive of the new service. We are also announcing today the establishment of the National Offender Management Board, chaired by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins), who has responsibility for correctional services.
In due course, we shall make separate announcements on the inspection regime, which will remain independent. We intend to learn lessons from the use of contestability within the Prison Service. Contestability
172
will extend to not-for-profit and voluntary organisations, which we invite to come forward to work in partnership with the service.
We believe that the task of integrating the management of offenders is best achieved at regional and local level, where effective links can be forged and joined-up strategies developed. Those will include working with complementary services, including health, education, housing and employment.
We will create 10 regional offender managers, responsible for the end-to-end management of offenders, covering the nine English regions and Wales. We will, as part of the overall review of the location of Government posts, be looking to de-centralise more of the service.
The regional offender managers will be responsible for ensuring effective case management. They will contract for prison places, community placements, supervision and other critical interventions, as part of the new partnership approach. But I believe—perhaps that phrase is a bit hackneyed now—that the judiciary can be much better informed about the effectiveness of different forms of sentencing and be more aware of what is likely to be most effective for particular individuals. We introduced in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 the new Sentencing Guidelines Council to formulate a comprehensive set of guidelines.
I have agreed with the Lord Chief Justice and the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs that it is important that greater knowledge on the effectiveness of interventions, including the cost-effectiveness of different approaches, should inform the work of the Sentencing Guidelines Council. That will be crucial to the work of the judiciary and magistracy at regional and local level. In the first instance, we would seek their urgent intervention in eliminating the drift in sentence length and to seek a reduction in unjustified variation in sentencing across the country.
I expect those reforms to lead to a much more effective, consistent and transparent criminal justice system, but those who work in the service bear the brunt of both the challenges and the change for the future. I wish to pay tribute to the staff in the prison and probation services and the YJB, whose expertise has contributed so much to the achievements that I have already outlined in this statement. Those changes represent an assertion of our confidence in those who work with offenders and our belief that the new arrangements will help substantially to make their work in custody and in the community significantly more effective.
I repeat that reducing reoffending by better protecting our communities, by punishing offenders more transparently and by equipping them to avoid a return to criminality is our key objective. I know that that goal will be shared by both the House and the country, and I commend the statement to the House.
David Davis: I thank the Home Secretary for giving us an advance copy of his statement.
There are aspects of the statement that the House should welcome. I join the Home Secretary in his praise for the staff of the Prison Service, the probation service and the Youth Justice Board. The Opposition have long

173
supported the work of the YJB and are glad that it is working successfully. The proposals to use the private and voluntary sectors in assisting the probation service represent an intelligent way forward. Indeed, I welcome the Home Secretary's conversion to contestability, which. I understand, is the current new Labour word for privatisation.
We also welcome the principle of localisation in the correctional service—something else that we have long called for—but it is difficult to understand how it will work with the current pressures of overcrowding in the system. How will a localised service deal with a prisoner who lives in Devon but serves his time in Durham because of overcrowding?
Let us understand what the report really is. It is the inevitable result of six years of failure. It is the inevitable result of six years of inconsistency and incompetence under the Government, and it is the inevitable result of a Home Secretary who talks tough on sentencing, who creates more crimes and more imprisonable offences but does not build enough prisons to house the increasing number of criminals and is then surprised when his prisons overflow and he is forced to put criminals into police cells, sometimes costing more than putting them up at the Ritz.
Of course we welcome the 14,700 extra prison places, many of which were due to Conservative plans and investment, but at least 8,000 more places than the Prison Service can manage will still be needed by 2006. At worst estimates, that figure reaches 22,000. That is why the chairman of the Parole Board says that home detention orders and parole decisions are made not to get the right outcome, but to alleviate overcrowding. The probation service and the Prison Service are now so overstretched that they cannot do their jobs properly. More than half of prisoners reoffend within two years of their release. Nearly three quarters of young offenders reoffend, setting many of them off on a lifetime of criminality.
Will the Home Secretary, as part of the review, commit himself to delivering a reduction in reoffending rates? Specifically, in a week in which it was revealed that one in four teenagers commits a crime, where in today's statement is a concrete proposal that will reduce reoffending among young offenders.
Mr. David Hinchliffe: A short, sharp shock.
David Davis: The hon. Gentleman wants a short, sharp shock. I am sure that he will get one shortly from his Whips.
Of course we welcome the 4,300 extra staff in the probation service, but their hands are tied by the Home Secretary. Only last week, a senior member of the probation service told me:
"We are drowning in audits and inspections and regulations and have very little time left to deal with offenders."
The Home Secretary's taste for central control is the reason why the approaches that worked abroad failed in Britain. He mentioned with approval in his statement the intensive change and control programmes. After spending many tens of millions of pounds on those
174
courses, which work abroad, why are they not working here? Recently published figures show that 70 per cent. of prisoners who have been on such courses were reconvicted after nine months. For the Government, those courses represent an early route out of prison, but for the prisoners themselves, they have all too often been an early route back.
The Home Secretary quite properly talks about the 50,000 prisoners who will receive basic skills training—we welcome that—but does he not realise that, with current prison overcrowding, prisoners are often moved on before their training is complete? He also points out that 50,000 prisoners have received clinical detoxification, but only 5,000 have undertaken drug rehabilitation programmes. I can think of no better evidence to support our calls for a 10-times increase in the number of residential rehabilitation programmes, especially for the young. Will the Home Secretary finally heed our calls?
The Home Secretary said that he will examine linking fines with the ability to pay as an alternative to custody, but the House will need to be reassured that fines and community penalties will not be used to replace custodial sentences merely because the Home Secretary has already filled our jails. Does he still believe that the punishment should fit the crime, or does he believe that it should fit the number of empty cells? Is he is proposing to replace custodial sentences with fines? That is what the Carter report says, and it would mean reducing prison places by 13,000 by 2009. At the same time, he estimates a reduction by 60,000 in those under supervision in the community. Let us understand that: replace prison and replace supervision with fines. Today, one in three fines are uncollected—fines totalling
£276 million are outstanding.
In the 2002 White Paper, the Government promised us root and branch reform because
"too few criminals are caught or convicted or prevented from reoffending".
That was five years after they came to power—quite an
indictment of their own record. Make no mistake, the statement is an admission of failure by the Home Secretary. Still too few criminals are caught. Still too few criminals are convicted, and too few criminals are prevented from reoffending. On the basis of today's report, it looks as though too few criminals will be properly punished in the future.
Mr. Blunkett: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the start of his response to the statement, which I found deeply encouraging. However, the remainder was deeply discouraging. The fact of the matter is that we are trying to ensure that all those with a part to play can engage in avoiding reoffending—I stressed that reoffending was at the absolute core of the proposals in the report. People who come out of prison should receive housing and heath care and should continue the training and education that they received in prison because such people often do not get that when they return to the community.
I stress that the decentralising measure is specifically designed to ensure not that we cause difficulty by overcrowding, but that when people move from one place of custody to another or from custody to the

175
community, their programme goes with them so that they are managed as offenders rather than by two separate services. That is why it makes sense to join up the services and decentralise them so that that may be offered locally, to build on some of the experiments that have taken place with not-for-profit and voluntary organisations, to work with people who come out of prison, and to work alongside the probation service. The measure will help us to avoid reoffending and to reduce the number of people who must be sent to prison, thus reducing the pressure on prison places.
More prison places are needed and 3,700 additional places are in the pipeline, including those created by the new prisons at Ashford and Peterborough. Some 2,750 probation officers are in the pipeline over the next two years in addition to the 4,300 whom I mentioned. Substantial investment is going into the programmes that I outlined for education, training and health care. The projections made by Patrick Carter and his colleagues suggest that the totality of the prison population will be reduced by 13,000 by 2009. That reduction would be achieved by a combination of avoiding variation and inconsistency in sentencing, a change to the way in which we handle community rather than custodial sentences with rigorous action for breaches, and the new experiment that I mentioned on satellite tracking and peer mentoring. The scheme in Florida in which 30,000 people were on satellite tracking was a tremendous success. I am happy to learn about what works from Europe and the United States rather than about what does not work. It is clear that short sentences do not prevent reoffending, which is why I said that I thought that sensible and effective community sentences represented a much better option.
The projections are largely based on ensuring that variations and inconsistencies are eliminated. Sentence drift over the past 10 years has meant that three times as many people who come in front of magistrates now are sent into custody while twice as many people are sent into custody by the Crown court. There is enormous regional variation in the number of people sent into custody for such reasons as motoring offences. There was an interesting debate on that in the House yesterday and comment in the press, so I shall draw attention to the facts. There has been a fivefold increase in the number of males who are sent to prison for motoring offences compared with 10 years ago and a fourfold increase in the number of women. There can be no justification whatsoever for that, which is why it makes sense to ensure rigorously that fines work and to replace low-level short-term prison sentences with effective community sentences. When the Criminal Justice Act 2003 went through the Commons in the autumn, the Opposition welcomed measures such as custody minus to ensure that people are given a chance to redeem their behaviour, although they are automatically transferred to prison without going through the system again if they do not do that.
All of that adds up to a sensible approach, and I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that, unlike him, it does not pose completely contradictory questions. That approach does not query why I do not send more people to prison while at the same time asking why I do not ease prison overcrowding, nor why I do not do more with people in prison, including those on drugs, and whether I will send more people to prison in the first place, or
176
whether I will spend more on residential places outside prison and, at the same time, more on people who are already in prisons, which already provide residential drug treatment and rehabilitation. The system will represent a complete transformation from that of seven years ago when virtually no one received education, training and work programmes, when there was no comprehensive health policy on mental health or drug addiction and when people left the service without supervision. All the measures that we are putting in place must be built on with an end-to-end change to the way in which offenders are handled. I hope that more people will be handled in the community and prevented from reoffending and, above all, that fewer people will have to be sent to prison in the first place and that there will be a reduction in crime rather than people rejoicing at having to be ever-increasingly tough on those who commit crime.
Mr. David Heath: I am also grateful to the Home Secretary for early sight of his statement, which I welcome. I also welcome Patrick Carter's report, which is damning in its analysis yet progressive in its recommendations. I also welcome the proposed National Offender Management Service, but given that the Prison Service and the probation service have widely differing cultures and ethos, will there be a merger of the best of both disciplines rather than one taking over the other? Will he clarify how the regional structure will not jeopardise local multi-agency functions? Given that the probation service is in meltdown—both financially and due to the scant support that it is able to offer tens of thousands of offenders—what immediate steps can he announce to rectify the situation, improve resourcing and, incidentally, improve the court system at the same time?
I, like the Home Secretary, believe that sentencing must be that which works. Given that a great many first time offenders are unlikely to reoffend, will he confirm that there will be greater emphasis, backed with resources, on pre-trial diversion? Will he confirm that his objective will be community sentences, which are credible to the public because they are relevant and visible to local communities in terms of including restoration and reparation? Will he examine again, as many people have asked him to, the provision for drug treatment in the community, which is inadequate at the moment?
Does the Home Secretary accept that no matter how much the education and training provision for those who must be in prison for the protection of the public has improved, it is still patchy and requires further improvement? Does he accept that adequate capacity in the Prison Service must exist in each region to match local needs so that prisoners are not moved from place to place but held securely in a meaningful corrective regime?
When will the Home Secretary be able to give us more details of the independent inspection regime? Does he agree that successive inspectors of prisons have performed an invaluable service to this country by pointing out the deficiencies in the present system? Will he confirm that prison deaths will be investigated with

177
immediate effect by a body that is independent of the Prison Service and, indeed, the new National Offender Management Service?
Mr. Blunkett: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's positive approach to the report. Although it sometimes pains me to agree with Liberal Democrats, it is a helpful sign that we may work across parties to get the system right. I confirm that we will draw down on the best practices and the best operational management of both services when we integrate them. I confirm that we will co-ordinate from a regional level rather than running the service. There will be a commissioning organisation to encourage and support best practice locally while people integrate and draw their practices together.
I confirm that we will develop an independent role for the ombudsman to investigate all deaths in custody. It is a tragedy when any death occurs and although there was one fewer death in the past 12 months than during the previous year, there are still far too many, so we need to ensure that we learn lessons. We will continue the work of the independent inspectorate. Rod Morgan, on the probation side, and Ann Owers, on the prison side, have done a first-class job in delivering that independent view and in encouraging us to do better. Whatever framework is put in place to mirror the new service, I have every intention of that work continuing.
The emphasis of the service will be to ensure that we avoid reoffending, and we will draw down on practices employed elsewhere to achieve that. I intend not simply to replace short-term custodial sentences, but to monitor the community sentences that we spelt out in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the intermittent custody to be piloted in the two prisons that I mentioned so that we avoid the problem encountered with fines. Breaches have not been followed through and the fine system used by magistrates has deteriorated over many years. That has resulted in a drift into custody rather than into alternative sentences. I hope that we will work together in making the system more effective.
Mr. John Denham: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, which will help to build on the substantial fall in crime that has taken place over the past five or six years. His commitment to replace short-term ineffective sentences with community punishments is bold and welcome. It will take time to get all that sentencing into place and to build up public confidence, so for a long time there will be a significant number of short-term prisoners. They are currently the worst served in our prison system and in rehabilitation afterwards. Will he assure us that there will be a particular focus on the position of those who will remain short-term prisoners within the prison system and that the new system will effectively integrate not just Prison Service management and probation, but drug treatment, employment services, housing, health and other services that need to work together to ensure that those prisoners are rehabilitated?
Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I can give my right hon. Friend those assurances. Intermittent sentences and the new custody minus programme relate to short-term sentences. They will automatically ensure that people know that there is a penalty for breach and will make a difference for magistrates and district judges who use those alternatives. With the exception of breaches, for which we should step up the threat of custody, satellite tracking and home domestic curfew could be an alternative to custody where bail would otherwise be an issue in terms of remand. We expect imaginative and effective experiments in that. I strongly welcome, as members of the Home Affairs Committee will, the commendation of that Committee's Chairman.
Mr. James Clappison: Could a particularly careful look be taken at the benefits of intermittent custody and more flexible regimes for women prisoners, bearing in mind the desirability of keeping women in touch with their families, especially if very young children are involved, and that women prisoners tend not to serve sentences for the violent offences that cause most concern to the public?
Mr. Blunkett: I am up for that, if I can be colloquial for a moment. The experiment at Morton Hall will be crucial. We have just over 5,000 women prisoners, which is an increase of well over 40 per cent. in the past five or six years. It is extremely worrying. Many of those women are in prison for drug-related offences. We need to route back those who are, for instance, picked up as mules from other parts of the world and to get behind the problem in terms of the organised criminals who misuse and abuse them by engaging them in such criminality. Intermittent sentences and custody minus will help us to do that and will help people to avoid reoffending.
Mr. Keith Bradley: I welcome the statement, but seek clarification on the youth justice system. I welcome the integration of probation and prison services. Is there a similar plan to reorganise youth offending teams to be better co-ordinated with the regional structure that the Home Secretary proposes? Similarly, will the inspection service, which he will announce later, also include the inspection of youth offending teams?
Mr. Blunkett: My right hon. Friend has considerable experience of that subject. On the latter point, the inspection regime has been extended to the Youth Justice Board and the youth offending teams. We expect that to be part of the announcement on the inspection regime.
On my right hon. Friend's first point, it is critical that we get the integration with the experimental child trusts at local level and with the Connexions programme right, without losing the focus of youth offending teams and affecting the work that has to be done with those who are engaged in, or about to be engaged in, criminality. I do not want to lose the connection, which he rightly highlighted, between managing the regime as a whole and co-ordinating from the regions. However, I do not

179
want to lose the new engagement with other children's services, which will also be crucial if we are to avoid reoffending.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: What will be the net increase in public sector posts, broadly defined? The Secretary of State announced the creation of the National Offender Management Service and 10 regional bodies on top of the existing probation and prison services and the Youth Justice Board. How many more public sector posts have been created, and what is the best estimate of the net increase in cost to the public sector?
Mr. Blunkett: There will be 2,750 more probation officers on top of the £100 million investment this year, which will bring into the probation service a further £110 million investment over the next two years. With those 2,750 jobs, there will be an unspecified number of additional jobs within the Prison Service to match the 3,700 places—[Interruption.] There are grumbles from the Opposition. Those are public sector posts.
David Davis: Answer the question.
Mr. Blunkett: I am giving the right hon. Gentleman the answer.
There will be fewer administrative and managerial posts. We are creating 10 management posts across England and Wales and are intent on amalgamating the central office functions of prison and probation, thereby bringing about a dramatic reduction in those who do an excellent and important job, but who are not at the front line. There will be a reduction and I am happy to return to the House to discuss the estimate of public saving that can be reinvested in ensuring that we clamp down on criminality.
Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, especially the creation of the National Offender Management Service. Everyone who has a prison in their constituency, as I do in Rochdale, knows that a seamless service makes common sense for the provision of care before, during and after imprisonment. From our direct experience at Buckley Hall, which has been in the public and private sector as both a male and female prison, we welcome the identification of the problem of short-term sentences, especially with regard to rehabilitation. The problem, which has been mentioned on the Floor of the House before, is acute for women prisoners and the women's estate, especially with their high use of class A drugs and as poly-users.
Will my right hon. Friend give some thought to simple things? For example, we discovered that when male prisoners were admitted, the male regime did not consider whether they had notified their landlords of their imprisonment, so they accrued debt. When they were put back into the public domain, they could not get housing because of their huge arrears, and those huge debts made them more liable to commit crime.
Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her observations, which are apposite as usual. Housing is a crucial issue. A new advisory service within the Prison Service will work with the new management service to
180
ensure that we get that right. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Minister for Work for their willingness to consider the whole nature of what prisoners can accumulate from their work in prison and in training to enable them to have something better than the discharge grant. They need to take up rented accommodation quickly and easily without landlords fearing that they will default. If we do not do that, it is not surprising that people reoffend. The basic thing that people need when they come out of prison, apart from support as vulnerable individuals, is housing and the possibility of a job. If we can manage that, we might have a more sane system.
Mr. Nick Gibb: This is a disappointing statement, and it is not what people thought the Labour party meant by being "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime". The Home Secretary will be aware of concerns in the communities around Ford open prison about the increasing number of prisoners who abscond from that prison. Although Ford is an open prison, to which only short-sentence prisoners or prisoners coming to the end of their sentences should be sent, it appears that longer-sentence prisoners are being sent there as the prison system as a whole becomes more overcrowded. Will the right hon. Gentleman give me an assurance that inappropriate prisoners are not being sent to Ford—and also that if subsequent to today's statement he discovers that they are, he will see to it that that policy is changed?
Mr. Blunkett: I have already asked the new chief executive of the service to report on the operation of open prisons to me and to the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East, who has responsibility for correctional services. We are not entirely satisfied that we have got the system right, although we reject the idea that the issue is new. There has been a programme of gradual scheduled movement to open prison and rehabilitation for the past 20 years, and we have no intention of reversing that, but we believe that far more scrutiny needs to be given to those who are placed in an open prison at a particular point in their sentence. Similarly, we should consider tracking and electronic monitoring of prisoners within the open estate; transfer to an open prison is part of the transition back to the community, and given that—with all-party agreement—we are making more extensive use of home domestic curfew, it seems reasonable to do the same in open prisons. Of course, if the hon. Gentleman draws any clearly unsatisfactory incident to my attention, I shall expect action to be taken on it.
Mr. Tom Clarke: As co-chairman, with Lord Rix, of the all-party learning disabilities group, I welcome in particular the part of my right hon. Friend's statement in which he said that dialogue was taking place between the Department of Health and his own Department about prisoners with mental illness. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that organisations such as Mind and Mencap take the view that there are still far too many people with learning disabilities and mental illness in prison, which

181
presents problems not only for them but for health units within prisons, and that he will keep those matters under strict review.
Mr. Blunkett: I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments. The transfer of function and therefore of resourcing to the Department of Health is, in my view, a long overdue and welcome move—not least because the Department of Health has the money and will continue to have it through to 2008—that will enable us to invest in a medium-term programme that I hope will transform what happens in our prisons. Indeed, I have already seen it start to do so. There is no question but that a large number of people in our prisons suffer from mental health problems and disabilities to differing degrees. We have also tried to tackle the fact that the average reading age of prisoners in the estate is nine. Those facts speak out volumes in terms of cause and effect, and we have to deal with them as well as get tough and punish people who commit heinous crimes. The idea that we have gone soft, in the week when we have introduced life meaning life, and a dramatic change in all other sentencing in severe cases, is risible.
Mr. Steve Webb: Leyhill open prison in my constituency does good work in preparing low-risk offenders for release, but like those of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), my constituents are concerned that the wrong sort of people are being put into open conditions. Is the Home Secretary aware that within the past few weeks, a violent drugs offender seven years into a 21-year prison sentence was placed at Leyhill and promptly absconded? Will he please investigate the case as a matter of urgency, and assure us, as he has been asked to do, that dangerous people are not being put into open conditions?
Mr. Blunkett: I heard all about that prisoner during an extensive item on Radio 4—more extensive than it is prepared to offer for the whole reorganisation of the offender management system—and I am concerned. I am concerned because it is not true that that individual was transferred from category B in Scotland to category D in England; he had already been transferred to category C in Scotland. When he was transferred to England he followed the normal programme, but it is patently obvious from the fact that he has absconded that a mistake was made. An investigation of that individual case must inform the way in which we approach the broader issue that I mentioned a moment ago, of revising our approach to open prison.
Mr. David Hinchliffe: One of the big positives of the current Government's penal policy is the much closer working relationship between the Prison Service and the health service at local level. Of the two prisons in my constituency, one is a women's prison, and I am concerned that many of the women in that prison should not be there, but would perhaps be more appropriately placed in a health facility. Will my right hon. Friend state what practical steps the new board will
182
take at local level to encourage the diversion of such women from the penal system to more appropriate local health facilities?
Mr. Blunkett: It has taken me longer than I intended to fulfil what I spelled out to prison governors almost two years ago, and wrote and spoke about at that time, which was developing different approaches for different categories of prisoner, and reviewing our view of the estate. That will sometimes involve what have become known within the Home Office as Carter prisons—very large prisons offering the type of facilities, including education, health care, training and work preparation and remedial action, that are needed for long-term prison residents—and sometimes secure hostel accommodation for prisoners who do not present a risk to themselves or others, in which rapid rehabilitation is the order of the day. We can link that to tougher community sentences through satellite tracking and electronic monitoring, and to intermittent custody, which allows a different form of custody for weekends but allows women to continue to hold their family together during the week. Without treating women materially differently from men in respect of the same crime—to do so would be wrong, and would breach the principle of equality—we can tailor our action to the offending behaviour of the individual concerned and ensure that we prevent their reoffending in future.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: The Secretary of State complained about what he described as the unjustifiable increase in the number of custodial sentences imposed for driving offences. Is he not aware. as many hon. Members are from their postbags, that there is a significantly greater public appetite for more custodial sentences to be imposed for certain categories of driving crime, such as driving recklessly or dangerously? Does he not think, on reflection, that the matter is better left to the courts than to him?
Mr. Blunkett: On the latter point, where people cause death and injury to others, we have toughened the law—for example, in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. I do not need any lectures from Opposition Members about that. I picked up the substantial campaign run by my hon. Friends, especially those representing constituencies in the north-east of England, following some horrendous incidents of inappropriate sentencing and examples of judges' inability to pass adequate sentences. We have given judges the power, which the transport Bill will extend, to give such sentences. My point was that the past 10 years had seen a fivefold increase in the number of minor custodial sentences, rather than fines or community sentences, imposed for similar offences. The sentences had to be minor because the alternative to custody was a fine, and the case was heard in the magistrates court; we must understand the different layers of the system. That diversion to custodial sentences was not justifiable. The Lord Chief Justice, the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and I agree on that. We believe that consistency and transparency, far from failing to provide a deterrent, will help people to understand what will happen in what circumstances.
Martin Linton: If my right hon. Friend has 14,000 more prison places and 3,000 more in the pipeline, and £900 million more to spend on prisons and probation, which I very much welcome, and if he is able to free up space by shifting the emphasis to weekend prisons and intensive community programmes, which I also welcome, is there not now scope to close some of the Victorian prisons, especially those in London, that are no longer fit for service?
Mr. Blunkett: With the considerable assistance of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the spending review, I hope to be able to negotiate the means, including bridge funding, to close and dispose of those outdated 19th century prisons that are a disgrace to the 21st century—one of which, I discovered, although it had been built in 1849, had supposedly been modernised in the 1980s. I hope that we can introduce proposals that will not only bring about a change in the regime and the working conditions of those overseeing the prisoners, but provide an estate that will enable us to achieve the goal that I have set out this afternoon.
Mr. Andrew Turner: A large number of prisoners, both nationally and in the Isle of Wight group of prisons, are from Jamaica. Could more offenders be repatriated to serve their sentences? Will the new service examine the cost-effectiveness of helping the Jamaican Government, practically and perhaps financially, to rehabilitate those offenders?
Mr. Blunkett: We made an announcement in the autumn about the return to country of origin of several hundred prisoners in the prison estate. That is now being undertaken. We are happy to look at how we can assist the receiving authorities in other countries with the continuing rehabilitation of those offenders. Obviously, we also need in place, as we have in the case of Jamaica, new visa regimes to ensure that offenders do not return to this country to commit crime.
Chris Ruane: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the case of Yvonne Scholes, a constituent of mine, who committed suicide at the age of 16 in Stoke Heath. I welcome the proposals to involve the ombudsman in inquiries into suicides and deaths in custody. What guarantees can my right hon. Friend give us to ensure that the ombudsman's recommendations will be listened to and acted upon at the highest level?
Mr. Blunkett: I well understand my hon. Friend's concern, and the tragedy for the family and others when young people in that age group take their own lives. It is a terrible personal tragedy, and we need to take whatever steps are necessary, including, as far as possible, the mentoring of those entering the custodial estate. The ombudsman's reports, which will now be mandatory in respect of any death in custody, will be published, and my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for correctional services will give a guarantee that we will report back on those deaths and respond to the ombudsman's reports openly and transparently.
Sue Doughty: Returning to the problem of offenders with a history of mental illness, which may have led to their offence in the first place, I welcome the Secretary of State's intention that much more of their care will be devolved to the Department of Health. In the meantime, what plans does he have to reduce the number of people who go through the revolving door of offending, going to prison and getting inappropriate care in prison because the health service has not had the resources to provide the care that they need?
Mr. Blunkett: We have an agreement with the Department of Health for 300 additional posts working specifically on mental health throughout the Prison Service. The crucial issue that the hon. Lady raises is how things are handled when people are released from prison and go back into the community. For long-term offenders, support has been provided by the probation service. For those serving shorter sentences, that has not been available. The proposals seek to redress that balance and ensure that, using a variety of support systems, we can work with the health service and social services in an integrated and joined-up approach to dealing with those long-term problems.
Mr. Martin Salter: The Home Secretary is well aware of my concerns about the need to tighten up the far too sloppy administration and supervision of drug testing and treatment orders. Given the strong link between class A drug addiction and crime, what comfort can he offer my constituents in Reading whose lives have been disrupted by drug addicts burgling their homes while awaiting a place under a drug testing and treatment order?
Mr. Blunkett: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I share those concerns. Over the past three or four months we have been examining how we can ensure that the 24-hour referral for probation and the 48-hour referral for treatment can be made a reality. The criminal justice interventions programme, and the new areas that we announced in addition to the original 30, will enable us to monitor how the best practice can be translated to areas across the country that are not part of the criminal justice interventions programme, and to ensure that DTTOs work effectively. Above all—I share the concern expressed by my hon. Friend—we shall ensure that when we say that someone is referred for treatment, they do start treatment rather than just have a consultation, and that nobody uses other Acts of Parliament to suggest that an individual who drops out of treatment cannot be reported. The excuses offered to us publicly and privately about why people do not do their damn job properly make us all sick to the hilt.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: That is all very well, but surely there is a real problem of drugs getting into prisons. According to the Department's estimate, almost 50 per cent. of all prisoners will take drugs at some stage during their stay in prison. How are the drugs getting into prisons? That figure is a disgrace. Will the Home Secretary do something about it?
Mr. Blunkett: Of course, that "all very well" related to an entirely different question about treatment in the community, not about prisons, but I take the hon. Gentleman's point. It is clear that prisoners are receiving drugs. We have been monitoring the situation. Fewer prisoners are apprehended and there are fewer drugs in prisons now than there were five years ago, but there are still too many. The figure is not 50 per cent., by the way; the proportion whom we believe have access to drugs at any one time is about 11 per cent—but that is not good enough. It is unacceptable, and the regimes must be tightened to identify those who are bringing drugs in. Obviously, it is those who visit prisoners and those who can provide a way of getting them into the prison estate. I have made it clear to the new management service that we need to use electronic means to detect drugs being thrown over walls and fences, and we need to make better and continuing use of dogs, which had started to be phased out, and, above all, of the testing regime for all prisoners, so that we can get to grips with the problem.
John McDonnell: In 2001 the Government decentralised the probation service to 42 local probation boards, to ensure their coterminosity with police authorities and magistrates courts areas. How does the new regional structure relate to those 42 boards and the future decentralisation of the Court Service?
Mr. Blunkett: Two and a half years ago we created a national body with a devolved administration. The new management role at regional level will continue to co-ordinate those structures, but will do so with the Prison Service and the other agencies and partners involved in rehabilitation and support. That will not disrupt the existing interface with the Court Service; I hope it will improve it by ensuring that, across the 42 regions, people can manage and commission those services more effectively.
Bob Spink: We see today more bureaucratic madness from the Home Secretary, who seems to have forgotten that prisons should have as one of their functions real deterrence. Can we move from the presumption of early release to a system in which early release must be earned by prisoners; can we have prison regimes that are tough, educating and rehabilitating; and, above all, can we have more testing and more treatment for drugs?
Mr. Blunkett: I thought for a moment that I was about to be attacked for being too liberal, but the hon. Gentleman finished his oration by asking me to do what I have just said we are doing, and intend to do more intensively and vigorously and with more joined-up policy. We will also do it with a lot less bureaucracy, because of joining the headquarters and services together, which will cut out duplication.
Mr. David Borrow: May I raise the issue of the role of the voluntary sector in prisoner rehabilitation? In 2002 I visited about a dozen projects run by the YMCA inside and outside prison. They were excellent and added to the work done by the public sector. I should like to raise with the Home Secretary
186
two issues that were raised on that occasion. First, there was a need for ongoing funding. Most of the projects were short-term pilots that came to an end. If the voluntary sector is to have a key role in the process, the funding needs to be long term and built into the mainstream. Secondly, does he recognise that the voluntary sector can often add to the process things that excellent organisations such as the probation service cannot add, because it can win the confidence of offenders in a way that organisations that are seen as part of the state find difficult?
Mr. Blunkett: I agree entirely that mentoring and voluntary support are crucial. Such support can be provided on a long-term basis and relate to individuals. For obvious reasons, the professional services cannot provide such support in the same way on a daily basis. There is a serious issue about short-term funding; in other words, I am implying that we have too many pilots and not enough marshals.
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: When does the Home Secretary anticipate that custody plus will be implemented, and what level of resources will be allocated for that implementation?
Mr. Blunkett: We intend to implement custody minus first, not least for the reasons that I have been spelling out this afternoon in terms of providing an easy, effective and visible way of dealing with breaches. We intend to pilot custody plus in 2005 and, subject to the spending review, to implement it more widely from 2006. The matter is subject to discussions with the Treasury over the next six months, however, so I am not prepared at this juncture to give the hon. Lady the detail, which I have not yet discussed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
John Mann: We have moved from zero to 100 people in effective drug treatment by GPs in my constituency in the past six months. That represents a very substantial saving to the taxpayer. The Home Secretary may care to get some independent auditing done of the precise savings as a contribution to the cost of this welcome announcement.
A second such saving would come from sorting out the current mess with regard to the collection of fines—one of the biggest bugbears for my constituents and me. Would it not be sensible to introduce a fines system in which we do not spend a fortune trying to chase people who do not pay fines, but use the minimum wage, which we introduced, as a way of making people contribute through community work an amount equivalent to the fine? If they refused to do so, we could put them in prison. Will the Home Secretary undertake to advance that principle in discussions with the Department for Constitutional Affairs, in order to sort out that bugbear of mine, which my constituents share?
Mr. Blunkett: I have the same bugbear, although I have to say that I am deeply relieved that my hon. Friend's constituency legitimately fell into the second round of the criminal justice interventions programme, which has made my life a lot easier. The substantive point that he makes is entirely right. As part of our report, we are accepting that we should place people in

187
compulsory work if they are unwilling to pay the fine. Above all, the fine should be paid, so the prison sanction should be used. The Carter report makes it clear that there will not be a short-term gain in terms of relief of pressure on the prisons. Initially, we will have to send people to prison more readily in order to get across the message the fines are not an optional extra, but a punishment. The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and I will discuss the matter, and if we could link that issue with ability to pay and what are called "day fines", which work effectively across Europe and reflect the likely number of days for which somebody would be put into prison, which are translated into the amount of money earned in those days and into the fine itself, we might start to make some sense of a new fines system that really works.

Points of Order
2.5 pm
Mr. Clive Soley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You may remember that on 11 November, I raised a point of order concerning News International. Since then, I have written to Rupert Murdoch, the chairman of the parent company, seeking clarification of some points. However, as a result of that point of order, other matters came to my attention that I felt I should draw to the attention of the House and on which I felt that I should ask Mr. Speaker to offer a ruling.
I have been aware for a couple of years that a small number of journalists tape record conversations with Members of Parliament. Although I am raising this issue in relation to Members of Parliament and other people who work in the House, I shall also raise it with the Press Complaints Commission, as the point on which I seek Mr. Speaker's guidance is the question of conversations recorded without consent in this House.
May I suggest that anyone in the House of Commons should tape record a conversation in only one of two circumstances? The first and most normal circumstance would be where they have gained the consent of the person involved to making the tape recording. The only other circumstance, which should be extremely rare, is where the tape recording is made without such consent in order to reveal a serious wrongdoing, by which I do not mean some minor matter of personal relationships that are not of significance. I am advised that if a tape recording were made without consent and a third party were then allowed to hear it, a criminal offence might have been committed by the person who made the recording.
The final point that I should like to draw to your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that following my earlier point of order on 11 November, an approach was made to me on behalf of a News International newspaper suggesting that I should state "my negotiating position". Make what you will of this, but I have no negotiating position other than to get News International to deal properly with its internal problems and not to try to warn off MPs while they are properly investigating problems in the newspaper industry. The suggestion made to me is rather difficult to understand and a bit worrying. I understand that News International people have also been suggesting that the figure that I mentioned when I raised my point of order and referred to a £500,000 payment that it made was incorrect. New International is suggesting that the figure was only £80,000, but I think that it should be put on record that it is not my understanding that that is a true reflection of the costs.
My aim in raising this matter is to ask Mr. Speaker to consider it and perhaps to come back to the House on the recommendation concerning tape recording. May I also suggest that it might be useful to discuss the matter with the chairman of the Lobby journalists?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): The hon. Gentleman has raised an important issue, and I have no doubt that Mr. Speaker will give serious consideration to the points that he has made.
Mr. Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that you

189
will agree that this too is an important point of order. Last night, this House passed a programme motion on the Traffic Management Bill providing that proceedings should be completed by Thursday 12 February and that the Committee should have leave to sit twice on its first day, thereby implying some sense of urgency. Although Opposition Members would have liked more time, we understood that there would be at least five weeks, or 10 days, of Committee proceedings, starting next Tuesday, 13 January. I have now been told that the Government will not allow the Committee to begin until Tuesday 3 February, which will give the Bill just two weeks in Committee rather than the five that we had expected. Under Standing Orders, as the guardian of Back Benchers, do you have any power to order the Committee to meet sooner? The Government's behaviour on this Bill is particularly cynical and manipulative, because by having an early Second Reading they prevented the Select Committee from scrutinising it. They are now intent on preventing the Standing Committee from doing its work of scrutiny. We are familiar with this Government's guillotines truncating the torsos of Bills, but they are now, by guile, extending the guillotine to the legs as well.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made a point that is now on the record, and I suggest that he pursue the matter through the usual channels.
Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is there no protection that the Chair can offer the House in circumstances such as those that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) has outlined? If the House is asked to vote on a programme motion immediately following a Second Reading on certain assumptions, or even understandings, the Programming Sub-Committee will meet fairly soon after that, presumably on the basis of those assumptions. If the Government are then free to move the start date of the Committee as my hon. Friend suggests, does that not make nonsense not only of the whole concept of programming, but of any kind of relationship that may or may not exist between the usual channels? I ask this because if the situation that my hon. Friend outlined is the case, and if there is any chance of its being repeated, the House is now completely at the mercy of the Government, who, it seems, can do anything they like, notwithstanding motions passed by this House.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I confirm what I have already said—that the matter raised by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) could be pursued through the usual channels. As for the right hon. Gentleman's other point, that could well be raised in the Second Reading debate.

Orders of the Day

  National Insurance Contributions and Statutory Payments Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  2.11 pm
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill is a modest measure, which continues the work undertaken with employers on reducing paperwork and record keeping that is considered unnecessary. It is a technical Bill, and I do not intend to pore over the detail of each and every clause this afternoon—as I am sure hon. Members are greatly relieved to hear—because that pleasure awaits in Committee. Rather, I intend to give the House an overview of the reasons for the changes that are being made and of what the Bill will do.
  In 1997, the Government considered the way in which the tax and national insurance systems operated. Income tax under PAYE—pay as you earn—and class 1 national insurance contributions are paid largely by the same group of people. They are both collected in the same way—by payroll deductions administered by employers. That creates duplication of administrative effort. Both employers and ordinary taxpayers were required to deal with two different organisations in relation to their tax and national insurance affairs. That was especially the case for employers who were visited regularly by both the Inland Revenue and the Contributions Agency to check on their operation of PAYE and contributions. Therefore, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced at the time of his March 1998 Budget that the Contributions Agency and the Inland Revenue would be merged. He said:
  "Employers and employees will…benefit from…the establishment of a single organisation to deal with both income tax and national insurance."
  At the time, that move was widely welcomed by business and by Members on both sides of the House.
  The merger was implemented by the Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc.) Act 1999 and, again, Members on both sides of the House supported it. However, as my noble Friend Baroness Hollis made clear during the debates on the Bill in the other place, it did no more than provide for
  "a technical transfer of functions—of the Contributions Agency"—
  which was then in the Department for Social Security—
  "to the Inland Revenue and of policy responsibility for collecting national insurance contributions to the Inland Revenue and Treasury."
  She continued:
  "Over time these transfers will reduce the burdens on business and take a first step towards removing the technical differences between tax and NICs rules that employers fear will trip them up."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 December 1998; Vol. 595, c. 1038.]
  In the four years since that transfer, we have done a great deal of work towards that aim. Officials in the Inland Revenue regularly meet employers' representatives to discuss the issues that concern them and to see whether they can find ways to put them right.

  191
  A lot has been achieved since 1997. We have made significant steps towards simplifying national insurance contributions. We have abolished the entry fee. Before 1999, when people reached the lower limit for starting to pay national insurance, it was calculated as a percentage of all their income. We restructured it to ensure that only the amount of earnings above the lower limit was liable to national insurance. We have aligned the primary and secondary thresholds with the income tax thresholds so that tax and national insurance both start at the same time. We have radically simplified the number of rates of employers' national insurance by reducing them to one. We have made significant changes to the way in which the Inland Revenue is organised so that tax and national insurance matters can be administered together. For example, the Revenue now operates joint employer compliance reviews covering tax and national insurance, and has introduced some new teams for the joint handling of expatriates' tax and national insurance affairs.
  In some areas, however, the administrative alignments that we want to make require changes in primary legislation. The Bill includes those measures.
  Rob Marris: My right hon. Friend mentions the simplification that has already taken place without the need for legislation such as the Bill. Has she any idea of how much money has been saved for business through that simplification?
  Dawn Primarolo: I do not have those figures to hand, but they would have been included in the regulatory impact assessments as the changes were made. I am happy to look into that and to ensure that my hon. Friend receives a detailed answer. I hope that I will have the opportunity to respond at the end of the debate.
  Mr. John McFall: My right hon. Friend will be aware that administrative simplification is extremely important to business: indeed, the Select Committee on the Treasury has received several submissions on that issue. She mentioned the joint committee that is working with business representatives. Can she give us a flavour of the comments that they are making, as that would be helpful to my Committee's future inquiries?
  Dawn Primarolo: In going through each part of the Bill, I am responding directly to observations that have been made. Indeed, draft clauses were circulated to interested parties to check with them that the proposals in the Bill met the requirements that they identified. As my hon. Friend will be aware, some people would like a complete alignment of tax and national insurance. But that involves significant difficulties: first, the national insurance system flags entitlement to benefit; and, secondly, the increased requirements that would be placed on employers to provide the detailed information that we would require in order still to be able to judge on individuals' benefit entitlement were greater than those of the current system. To assist employers, the Government are trying to ensure that, wherever possible, the national insurance system runs in the same way as the tax system as regards inspection, appeals, payments, recovery or—as is touched on in the Bill—
  192
  share schemes. Perhaps I shall deal with my hon. Friend's points as I cover each clause; if not, I am happy to return to them at the end of the debate.
  Mr. Mark Prisk: Is the Paymaster General ruling out any further alignment of the various systems?
  Dawn Primarolo: I am not ruling out further alignment. It is sensible to proceed by recognising the principles of the national insurance system in terms of flagging entitlement for the individual, and the responsibility of the employer and the employee to make their contributions. However, we are continuing our consultation exercises and discussions with the teams—they are not limited by a time period, and are an ongoing central function that is now required—and if any further clear improvements can be developed, the Government will certainly consider them. I cannot say that there are any obvious ones that we would want to introduce now, but I would not like to mislead the hon. Gentleman. As businesses and officials continue to hold discussions on the day-to-day operation of the system, it is impossible to say that no other changes will ever be requested. The door is not closed, but I am not aware of having omitted anything from the Bill that would be required in this regard. Of course, certain points have been made in those discussions, and I am sure that they will be the subject of more detailed debate in Committee. At each point the Government have had to make decisions on how the system operates, and I would be happy to tell the hon. Gentleman exactly why we have made those decisions.
  The Bill aligns officers' powers to obtain information when investigating national insurance contributions with their powers in relation to tax. This relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall). It will bring clarity for employers and introduce a consistent approach by Inland Revenue officers. Opposition Members specifically sought this move when the transfer of national insurance to the Inland Revenue was originally debated. At that time, it was recognised that differences existed between the then contribution agencies and the Inland Revenue's inspection powers. The Government felt, however, that a thorough review was needed to determine whether those differences were justified, and, if not, what type of alignment was necessary.
  We have undertaken such a review and concluded that the old national insurance powers needed to he replaced by those most commonly used for tax and other aspects of the Revenue's business. This does not amount to an extension of the Inland Revenue's powers; in fact, the reverse is the case. The Bill provides for the Inland Revenue to abandon the powers of entry and examination that it has for national insurance purposes. It does not have such powers in relation to tax matters, and it is inconsistent that it should have them for national insurance.
  We therefore propose to replace the Revenue's current power to obtain information for national insurance purposes with a power that ensures that, when the Revenue asks for information, the request is subject to third-party scrutiny to ensure that it is reasonable.

  193
  We consulted employers' representatives on these changes and they supported them. In particular, the Chartered Institute of Taxation has welcomed the intention behind this legislation, as has the TUC.
  Norman Lamb: Will the Paymaster General explain a little further how the third-party scrutiny will work?
  Dawn Primarolo: In judging whether it is making a reasonable request, the Inland Revenue will need to consider and refer to a commissioner. We are aligning all the processes and appeals processes in one common system, rather than keeping the two separate systems that we currently have. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that it is much better for employers to operate one set of rules across both tax and national insurance, and to deal with only one organisation in doing so. Because of the way in which national insurance is dealt with in legislation, that cannot be achieved in a finance Bill; it requires a national insurance Bill. That is the reason for our discussing this Bill today. Perhaps I can elaborate on this matter in my next point on debt recovery, to demonstrate to the hon. Gentleman what I mean.
  Mark Tami: Will my right hon. Friend tell us how long an average case would take, using this process, and how that compares with the present system?
  Dawn Primarolo: Perhaps I can respond by giving an example that relates to debt recovery. If I explain what the powers are at the moment and how they will change, my hon. Friend will be able to see that they are proportionate. I was concerned to ensure that we were not using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and that we were not introducing a huge amount of procedure to deal with a small issue. For example, the debt incurred in relation to class 2 national insurance contributions over a year is about £100. In my view, it would be disproportionate to operate a system separate from the tax system to recover such an amount. The Bill is therefore pushing together all the debt into one process, and operating at a de minimis level, as outlined in the legislation. How long the process will take once the minimum level that triggers the recovery has been reached depends on the employer's response. If they accepted the liability and paid it, it would take a matter of days from the requirement to pay. If they did not, and the case went to the appeals procedure, it could take slightly longer. Perhaps I could provide examples when I explain the next clause.
  The main alignment measure deals with the way in which the Inland Revenue recovers debt. The vast majority—about 97 per cent.—of national insurance contributions are collected with tax, and since 1975, any debt has been recovered under tax rules. The Bill aligns the debt recovery rules for the remaining 3 per cent. of national insurance contributions with the tax rules. Until now, national insurance contributions payable by the self-employed—mainly the £2 a week flat-rate class 2 contributions—have been recovered under different rules, which can be rather lengthy and unclear. This
  194
  means that a person owing both tax and class 2 national insurance contributions could face two separate actions. The Bill puts that right by aligning the periods of notice required for distraint action in England and Wales, and for the application of a summary warrant in Scotland, with those that apply to tax debts. It also aligns the procedure that applies to Northern Ireland with that of England and Wales.
  These changes are essentially a tidying-up exercise that will allow the Revenue to operate more effectively. While debt recovery might not always be a pleasant experience for the person from whom the debt is being recovered, it is obviously important that it should be a straightforward, single, swift action across all the areas in which debt is outstanding to the Inland Revenue.
  Mr. Prisk: The Paymaster General rightly says that the need to align the procedures is important, and that is welcome in principle. However, does she accept that reducing the notice period from 30 days to seven, in some cases, represents a diminution and a significant change, and that those affected need to be made aware of it? Some people who are used to the old rules could find themselves getting caught out. Can she assure the House that proper notification will be made prior to the implementation of this measure, so that those who could be caught out will be properly informed?
  Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Of course, informing the individuals concerned of the change in period to seven days will be important, and that will be done. Often, when a debt is outstanding for national insurance contributions, a tax debt is also outstanding, and the tax debt is within seven days. Therefore, such a move, although it appears to be a change from seven to 30 days, actually puts all the arrangements within one procedure, with which individuals and companies are already familiar because it is the procedure that applies to tax. I am sure that he has also read, because he is assiduous in his preparation for Bills, that when the Lord Chancellor's Department conducted an extensive consultation on the question of periods of notice and best practice, seven days was the recommended notice period. Of course, the position in Scotland is slightly different, because we are following the legislation in Scotland. It is an important point, however, that we may wish to investigate in a little more detail in Committee.
  The other change in this area is a new regulation-making power that will allow the Inland Revenue to apply tax legislation to the recovery of this type of national insurance contributions debt in future, without having to introduce consequential primary legislation. Basically, that means that the rules covering tax and taxes Acts will still be subject to scrutiny, but the two sets of rules will be kept aligned so that we do not need to keep returning to the House to make primary legislation.
  As hon. Members will be aware, most national insurance contributions are outside the scope of the annual Finance Bill. The power that we intend to introduce in the Bill is similar to that which applies to the other 97 per cent. of national insurance contributions. It is therefore important to understand

  195
  the scale. The fact that we require primary legislation is related to the structure of national insurance. The purpose is to enable us to keep the tax and national insurance rules in alignment in future. Otherwise, as I said, we would constantly need to find space in parliamentary time for small technical Bills, when the principle on tax had already been dealt with in the House. Clearly, if we can assist the House in that way, that will be a desirable outcome.
  I want to turn to the important issue of employers' national insurance obligation on securities-based earnings. An alignment of administrative rules for tax and national insurance is important, but we are also mindful of those areas in which, because of the structural differences between tax and national insurance, alignment is not the answer. Instead, we need to make sure that we enable individuals and employers to meet their obligations in relation to national insurance contributions in a way that is fair and straightforward.
  We received representations saying that employers were facing difficulties because of the rules on paying national insurance contributions when earnings were paid in the form of shares or other securities. The majority of securities-based earnings are share based. The Government and, I think, all Members, are keen to encourage employees to have a stake in the company for which they work through share ownership. It is a good incentive, and it is good for employees' motivation and therefore for productivity. The awarding of shares recognises employees' work within the company and enables them to share in their firm's success. We therefore encourage the payment of share-based earnings by employers. Because of that, and because of the representations that we received, we have included in the Bill two measures that will offer employers choices in the way that they meet their national insurance contributions obligations when they make payments of earnings in the form of securities. We believe that those will make a positive contribution to help employers who want to reward employees through share-based earnings.
  I now want to turn to the question of recovery of primary national insurance contributions. First, the Bill extends employers' liability to cover primary national insurance contributions paid on behalf of their employees and ex-employees when the earnings have been in the form of securities. That means that both employers and employees will be able to choose how those obligations are met, and ensures that employers are not forced to carry the charge themselves. Secondly, it addresses a problem faced by employers who pay earnings in the form of restricted or convertible securities. The timing and the amount of employers' national insurance contributions on those securities are unpredictable, which gives rise to large accounting difficulties for employers. The Bill will allow an employer to ask an employee to fund the employer's secondary national insurance liability on post-acquisition earnings received from restricted and convertible securities. In doing so, however, the Bill will not introduce a new facility but will extend the scope of a facility introduced in 2000 that allowed that transfer of liability on unpredictable share option gain. That facility has been well received and applications for its
  196
  use have been received from more than 1,800 employers. We believe that the extended facility introduced in this Bill will also be widely used.
  Norman Lamb: In a sense, the Paymaster-General has answered my question. I understand entirely how the present restrictions might act as a disincentive to employers to offer the kind of securities that are dealt with in the Bill. Does any evidence exist, however, that trends in the offers of such securities-based remuneration by employers are being held back, as suggested by the representations?
  Dawn Primarolo: We accepted the representations made by employers that circumstances existed in which they did not feel able to offer securities or share options, on the basis that they were not properly protected in terms of the unpredictability of such options. Clearly, it is difficult to quantify how many share options would have been given, but given that we received those representations during the consultation on simplifying national insurance and tax administration—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) referred—and given the evidence in them, we believe that this is the correct way forward.
  In making provision for this arrangement, however, we have been careful to ensure that the central principle within the national insurance contribution system—that employers and employees have a liability, and that employers cannot transfer unreasonably liability to employees or put pressure on employees in relation to the transfer of that liability—is protected in the way that we have approached the Bill. Clearly, that is a difficult line to walk, and we have tried to ensure at all costs that the principle is maintained and that employees do not come under pressure in circumstances where share-based options, or the offer of them, would not be a sensible way forward.
  Rob Marris: Paragraph 13 of the explanatory notes says:
  "Clause 1…and supporting secondary legislation will extend the ability of the employer to recover contributions in two ways".
  and goes on to delineate them. I accept that that is in the explanatory notes rather than the Bill, but I am slightly confused by the statement that both methods of recovery require
  "the written consent of the employee".
  If the employee's written consent is required, why is primary legislation necessary to deal with what could be simply a written contractual matter between employer and employee?
  Dawn Primarolo: An employer's national insurance contribution could be transferred only in the narrow case of share options. The rest of the system protects the principle that employers pay. As I told the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), the written consent of employees was considered necessary to ensure that they fully understood their obligations in accepting share options. We do not intend employees to be put under undue pressure in the transfer of earnings-based remuneration that would escape employers' NI contributions.

  197
  I am sure my hon. Friend agrees that, while we should try to facilitate the share options that all Members want to encourage, it is incumbent on us to ensure that there is no breach of the basic principles of the NI contributions system.
  Rob Marris Rob Marris rose—
  Dawn Primarolo: I must bear in mind that when my hon. Friend is present I should pay a little more attention to my own explanatory notes.
  Rob Marris: I thank the Paymaster General for her generosity in giving way again. Will she clarify a point for me? I may well not have interpreted it correctly, for, as she will appreciate, it is very technical. Will she confirm that if a written agreement is made between employer and employee transferring liability for the employer's contributions on security options to the employee, and if the employee does not meet the cost of that transferred liability, the Treasury will not seek to recover it from the employer?
  Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend is right: this is complicated. I believe he was a member of the Standing Committee that considered what became the Finance Act 2003, which engaged in extensive discussion of the new schedules on share ownership and the complexities of the requirements involved. That legislation arose from the unpredictable gains resulting from share ownership. The Government want to ensure that when a gain accrues to an individual and is realised, either the employer or the employee meets the NI liability. In these circumstances, the employee would have accepted liability, and the amount would be paid when a gain had been realised, as long as it was within the range required for NI to be triggered. I hope my hon. Friend is satisfied with that answer.
  Let me now deal with a slightly easier, more straightforward part of the Bill. The final clauses deal with statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay. The Bill makes important reforms to the way in which the Inland Revenue oversees SSP and SMP schemes, to protect the rights of sick people and new mothers. Responsibility for their operation was transferred to the Revenue at the same time as the transfer of responsibility for NI contributions. The compliance regime was transferred from the then Department of Social Security unchanged. Failures to comply with SSP and SMP obligations are currently dealt with as a series of minor criminal offences, as is benefit fraud. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) mentioned the consultation document that we issued to businesses on the simplification of tax and national insurance; this is one of the matters mentioned in that document.
  Treating non-compliance as a criminal offence is clearly out of step with the Revenue's practice of imposing civil penalties for compliance failures, and is disproportionate to the nature of the failures involved. The Bill aligns SSP and SMP regimes with the regime governing other parts of the Revenue's business. The arrangement introduced by the Bill is identical to that introduced for statutory paternity and adoption pay by
  198
  the Employment Act 2002. Our proposed system of civil penalties is proportionate to the failures to which it applies, and will be easier to implement.
  It is important for an effective compliance regime to operate. The vast majority of employers comply with their obligations voluntarily, and we are grateful for that, but we should bear it in mind that a small minority seek to avoid those obligations, either deliberately or through inaction. That is unfair to employees and to other employers. The Bill will protect employees' rights and also provide a level playing field for all employers. We are also introducing regulation-making powers enabling employers' SSP and SMP records to be inspected on the same basis as their payroll records.
  All the issues I have mentioned were identified by business when the Inland Revenue actively sought, through its consultation exercise, to simplify the operation of national insurance in particular—to align its procedures with tax procedures and to remove the burdens of unnecessary record-keeping and unnecessary repeated inspections of the same material by different teams.
  As I have said, this could be politely described as a technical Bill, but it is also a crucial enabling Bill. I assure Members that these changes are important to employers who administer and pay national insurance on behalf of their employees, to employees who become ill or have children and need the protection that the state affords through SSP and SMP, and to the tax and national insurance payers—all of us, essentially—who fund the administration of the NI system. We want to ensure that the system is as efficient as possible, that it is fair and that the requirements it places on both employees and employers to give the necessary information to the tax authorities are proportionate. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.
  2.49 pm
  Mr. Mark Prisk: I thank the Paymaster General for her thorough opening remarks. I apologise in advance for my throat. I think it was the Chief Secretary to the Treasury who described me as sounding rather like Edgar Lustgarten. I think that today I sound more like Gollum. I apologise if there is a creak and a crack halfway through—we shall see.
  The Bill has two distinct aspects. The first part seeks to change how employers administer national insurance contributions for, as the Paymaster General said, securities or share-based earnings. That change is a direct result of the ill-considered decision by the Chancellor to impose an additional 1 per cent. on employees' contributions over the upper earnings limit.
  The second part, as the Paymaster General mentioned, is intended to align the administration of both statutory sickness and maternity payments, as well as national insurance contributions. Those changes seek, in her own words, to tidy up previous, incomplete legislation and, according to much outside expert opinion, should have been enacted some years ago.
  Both parts of the Bill, therefore, arise from past errors and oversights by the Government. If, as such, it is both an admission of those failings and an attempt to correct them, it would be churlish not to welcome it. Despite that, we intend to ensure thorough scrutiny of the Bill throughout its progress. However, our ability to fulfil

  199
  that parliamentary role will be hampered by the fact that significant parts of the Bill will be published in secondary legislation, at a later date. This Government, perhaps more than most, have an unhealthy habit of pushing through substantial legal change by the abuse of secondary legislation. That means that we, as a House, rarely get the opportunity to see the proposed legislation in its finished form. There always seems to be a key part missing.
  In that sense, law-making under Labour has become a bit like buying cheap self-assembly furniture: you do not know whether you have all the pieces, you are not quire sure what the instructions are telling you and you cannot be absolutely certain that it will all fit together.
  Rob Marris: It sounds like the Tory party.
  Mr. Prisk: It sounds very much like the Labour party.
  The danger is that, unlike the results of a visit to MFI, we cannot take Labour's bad laws back if we do not like the end result. Therefore, can the Paymaster General explain the scope of the secondary legislation? Which parts of the Bill will it refer to? How will it affect both taxpayers and national insurance payers? What consultation with those affected is she planning? When does she expect it to be published?
  I turn to the specific elements in the Bill. Clauses 5 and 6 seek to align the respective administration of income tax and national insurance. As such, while welcome, that part of the Bill is long overdue. As the Paymaster General mentioned, that part follows the 1998 Budget and the accompanying Taylor report, when the Government denounced the dual systems of income tax and national insurance. Ministers cited those as being unduly onerous for the 1 million or so employers who had to run them simultaneously. Indeed, the then Secretary of State for Social Security, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), told the House that
  "they have to cope with two separate sets of rules. Moreover, if they have questions, they have to deal with two separate Departments. Those starting out on their own—perhaps starting up their own business or in other self-employment—also have to deal with separate Departments on tax and on national insurance. I therefore believe that the case for change is overwhelming."—[Official Report, 8 February 1999; Vol. 325, c. 37.]
  Nearly five years later, the job is still not complete. Indeed, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales bemoaned the Government's failure to act after even three years. In a statement, the tax faculty of the institute said that the stated merger benefits had not been achieved and that performance of the merged national insurance contribution office had in that time deteriorated. The faculty went on to highlight a string of problems. The claim forms had become more, not less, complicated. Employers would ring a dedicated helpline, only to get no reply; and if they did get a reply, they found that many expert personnel had left the service and they could not get the advice that they needed.
  Peter Bickley, technical manager of the institute, said at the time that the handling of national insurance contribution matters appeared if anything to be getting
  200
  worse, with a knock-on effect on the burdens placed on business and those who paid national insurance contributions. He said that it was essential that steps were taken to ensure that the merger achieved its objectives and reduced burdens; otherwise, there was a danger that the merger would fail to deliver the promised benefits. That was in 2002. Since then, of course, similar incompetence has emerged in the dismal handling of the new tax credits, for which the Paymaster General is also responsible. Therefore, can she tell the House whether performance standards are better now than they were before the merger, as was promised by the Chancellor? Has the burden of compliance gone up or down since then? Can she explain why it has taken another two years, following the statement by the institute, to bring these measures before us today? Was the delay a huge mistake or—worse—deliberate?
  Some people will say that this part of the Bill applies to just 4 per cent. of the national insurance fund. That is true but for tens of thousands of self-employed people it represents 100 per cent. of their contributions. In other words, for many people the five-year failure to clear up the rules is a real financial headache.
  I appreciate, perhaps more than most, that the Paymaster General is no friend of the self-employed. After all, it was she who imposed crude and ill-judged measures such as IR35 and the recent reinterpretation of section 660A of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. Indeed, we are told that she is now planning to clamp down on thousands—who knows, millions—more owner-managed businesses under paragraph 5.91 of the pre-Budget report, yet, just like the five-year delay on national insurance, there is to be no consultation, and no information to enable firms to plan ahead. Why will she not listen to small businesses on that matter?
  This Government, and this Minister in particular, treat the self-employed as second-class citizens. It is a woeful record, based largely on ignorance, and her actions show the Chancellor's words on enterprise to be just empty rhetoric.
  I turn to clauses 1 to 4 relating to securities or share-based earnings. That part of the Bill is a direct consequence of the Chancellor's decision to impose an additional 1 per cent. national insurance charge on employees' earnings over the upper earnings limit. There were many things wrong with the Chancellor's decision to hike up national insurance last spring. It will, for example, act as a serious drag on the competitiveness of our economy, as it is in effect a tax on jobs.
  Dawn Primarolo: I should like to give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to correct himself. The changes on share-based provisions in the Bill have absolutely nothing—zero—to do with the 1 per cent. and everything to do with representations made to the Government by employers about the options they required in order to simplify the operation, a point that his Government, in 18 years, never addressed.
  Mr. Prisk: The Paymaster General admitted that she had not quite read her explanatory notes when she replied to an intervention from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris). It is her own explanatory notes that highlight the fact that we

  201
  have a 1 per cent. surcharge on earnings over the upper earnings limit and that is what has triggered this decision, so she cannot try to get out of it that easily.
  Mr. David Ruffley: Just for the record and in support of my hon. Friend, the Paymaster General might like to turn to page 11 of the Inland Revenue's regulatory impact assessment. Paragraph 2 states:
  "The introduction of the 1 per cent. NICS charge on employees' primary NICS liability above the upper earnings limit could have an unintended impact on employers' ability to recover from an employee the primary NICS arising on non-cash payments of earnings",
  proving my hon. Friend's point absolutely 100 per cent.
  Mr. Prisk: Naturally, I am grateful to my hon. Friend, not least for reinforcing the point being made. It is no good the Paymaster General's saying, "It is nothing to do with us," when the Government's own documents show that this is a consequence—unintended, but a consequence nevertheless—of such action.
  Dawn Primarolo: Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood. I do not dispute what the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) said, but the point was that this was an issue regardless of whether or not there was a 1 per cent. additional liability. The provision was triggered not by the 1 per cent., but by a previous consideration.
  If the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) wants to make a point about the additional 1 per cent., he is of course entitled to do so. But he should be very careful not to mislead the House; otherwise, he will need to explain whether he believes that, before the 1 per cent. was added, there was no problem and no simplification of NICs was necessary. Does he believe that—yes or no?
  Mr. Prisk: The phrase, "unintended consequence" means something that is a result of someone else's actions. That is what the Paymaster General's own documents say, and that is the truth of the matter.
  Rob Marris: I caution the hon. Gentleman against selectively quoting, be it consciously or unconsciously, from the explanatory notes. Paragraph 12 says:
  "Most employees who receive security-based remuneration earned above the"
  upper earnings limit, which is £30,000. We should note the reference to "most" employees, not all. There are companies that have share-based options for people who earn considerably less. This legislation will deal with the difficulties that those lower-earning employees would experience. The hon. Gentleman should take note of the use of the word "most".
  Mr. Prisk: Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman is reading the wrong document. I do not know whether he has had a chance to read the regulatory impact assessment, but that is the document that we are referring to, and it uses the phrase "unintended
  202
  consequence". That is the line that the Government have put out. We have quoted it, and I am more than happy to do so again. [Interruption.] Well, it is in the Government's own document; if it is untrue, perhaps the Paymaster General will now correct it.
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: If the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) had continued to quote from the explanatory memorandum, he would have discovered that it does indeed mention the 1 per cent. figure. It states:
  "Most employees who receive security-based remuneration earned above the UEL and the employer did not have to pay primary contributions on their behalf. From 2003 onwards there is a 1 per cent. primary Class 1 contribution".
  Mr. Prisk: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West told us that one should not quote selectively, but the danger is that that is just what he has done.
  Despite the Paymaster General's protestations, the truth is that, as she said in her opening remarks, when an employer makes a security-based payment of earnings, there is no national insurance liability until these payments are realised—for example, when options are exercised to acquire shares. At that point, the employer is liable to pay both the primary and the secondary national insurance contributions due on the employee's gain. Until 5 April last year, most employees would have already paid their contributions up to the upper earnings limit, through the usual pay-as-you-earn system. However, from 6 April 2003, as a direct consequence of the Chancellor's decision, an additional 1 per cent. has been due on earnings that exceed the UEL. That is largely in accordance with the Government's own documents. Of course, employers have faced the difficulty of trying to recover the primary contributions to which the Paymaster General referred.
  The Bill is therefore designed, we are told, to enable employers to recover these contributions through new agreements and joint elections. As such they are, as the Paymaster General said, generally welcomed by employers and outside organisations. Indeed, encouraging employee share ownership is very important. When people have a stake in their workplace, it benefits everyone. When a company's performance is enhanced by the ideas and efforts of the people who work for it, it is right that those who have contributed to such success should be able themselves to share in the rewards. And the knowledge that they have a financial stake in their company can only encourage such people to strive to perform better—to add value, if one likes—leaving not only themselves but customers, investors and the economy as a whole better off.
  Of course, promoting wider share ownership is a Conservative value. Indeed, when we privatised so many of the old Government operations, we ensured that the employees had a share. That is why more employees bought and owned shares under the last Conservative Government than ever before. As I recall, at the time the Labour party, including the Paymaster General, bitterly opposed such changes. State ownership, not share ownership, lay at the heart of Labour's beliefs.

  203
  [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West seems to be suggesting that that is still the case.
  Rob Marris: indicated dissent.
  Mr. Prisk: Now, it would seem that Labour Members have realised the error of their ways. So I do hope that in her response, the Paymaster General will confirm—as I am sure she will—her Damascene conversion to promoting wider share ownership. It is a very welcome conversion, and I certainly look forward to hearing more about it later.
  When we consider the Bill in detail in Committee, we shall be able to ensure that the clauses achieve the Government's stated aims. However, we shall also want to know why some opportunities for reform have been overlooked. Before today's debate, I took the opportunity to discuss the Bill with a number of outside organisations, including ProShare, an excellent independent organisation that promotes wider share ownership. It raised one important issue that other experts have also mentioned, and I should like to touch on it now to see whether the Paymaster General will respond. She said that she was not aware of any omissions, but this may be one that is worthy of genuine consideration.
  The problem arises when, for example, an employees' trust established by the company founder holds shares and/or cash that cannot be distributed to employees without triggering a liability to NICs for the employer company. Where, for example, the employer company is now owned by persons other than the founder—for example, an institutional investor—the shareholders may be opposed to any move by the trust to distribute benefits, as that would create a new national insurance liability for the company, and so reduce its net assets. Typically, however, a trust cannot reimburse the employer for the cost of those contributions, as that would benefit a non-beneficiary and would therefore breach its own rules. If there is no further need for an employer to fund the trust, as is usually the case, there is no opportunity for other set-off arrangements to compensate the employer company.
  Therefore the problem is that money trapped in a trust that is owed to employees cannot be released because the company, quite naturally, is concerned about a triggering of liability that it would then have to pay. In other words, we have a stalemate.
  Rob Marris: The hon. Gentleman offers an interesting example. As I understand it, he is talking about a scenario in which, for example, a family trust has become divorced from the family company because the company has been taken over. But surely that contingent liability would have been factored in when a determination was made as to what share price should be offered by the person taking over the family company. Therefore, such liability would have already been taken into account.
  Mr. Prisk: That should normally be the case, but there are a number of exceptions. My purpose in raising this issue is to share in the hon. Gentleman's concern that a problem does in fact exist, and to see whether we
  204
  can get the Paymaster General to elaborate on it. I understand the point that he makes; indeed, I have raised it myself.
  I understand from ProShare and other outside bodies that this problem affects a number of companies and several thousand employes. I therefore ask the Paymaster General why it has been overlooked, and whether the Government plan to address it in the immediate future. If the Government were willing to introduce appropriate amendments to the Bill on this issue, we would certainly be willing to look on them constructively.
  At the heart of the Bill lies the need to correct the Government's previous errors and omissions, and in that sense we welcome it. The need to correct the problems associated with securities-based earnings and the recovery of NICs is clear. Indeed, as the party that has encouraged more people to own shares than any other, the Conservative party wants to help to remove any barriers to wider share ownership. We are waiting to see and examine the proposals in detail, but we hope and expect to do so positively.
  At the same time, we feel strongly that the Government should have acted far sooner to realign the rules for tax and national insurance and statutory payments. It is somewhat bizarre that a Secretary of State can call the case for change "overwhelming", only for nothing to happen for five years among his ministerial colleagues. The fact that that has been to the disadvantage of the self-employed is a disgrace, and it follows on from the shoddy treatment all too often meted out to them by so many Ministers in the Government. The next Conservative Government will redress that discrimination.
  The Bill is important, but it is, as the Paymaster General acknowledged, largely technical in content. As such, I can confirm that, although we plan to scrutinise the measure properly in Committee, it is not our intention to oppose it in the Lobby at the end of the debate.
  3.10 pm
  Norman Lamb: I thank the Paymaster General for her helpful explanation of what is clearly a very technical Bill and also for the way in which she took interventions during her presentation.
  I want to make it clear from the outset that we welcome this uncontroversial and constructive Bill. It is extraordinary that, since its publication before Christmas, it seems to have passed by without comment from anyone. It seems as though no organisations have made representations in response to the publication of the Bill. We checked with several organisations, but discovered no briefings. That is not necessarily a bad thing, although the Bill is unlikely to excite people either today or in Committee.
  We also need to recognise that the Bill is part of a process that has continued for some years. The most significant step was the transfer of administration of national insurance, statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay from what used to be the Department of Social Security to the Inland Revenue in April 1999. I heard what the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) said about how slowly matters have developed since then. I share his concerns, but it is

  205
  notable that the transfer of responsibility, which meant that one organisation dealt with both tax and national insurance, never happened under the previous Conservative Government.
  After the transfer, we had an announcement in the pre-Budget report of 1999 that consultation would take place between the Inland Revenue, employers' representatives and so forth to assess how to reduce the technical differences between tax and national insurance. In turn, that led to the technical discussion paper, which makes pretty heavy reading, that was issued in June 2000 and considered a number of areas for possible reform. A summary of responses to that document was published in July 2001. As the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford said, that was two years ago and progress made since then appears to have been slow.
  The Bill deals with only one of the issues in the discussion paper—the power of officers to check employers' records. I shall return to the other issues later. As the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford said, there has been considerable criticism of the pace of change since the transfer of administration to the Inland Revenue. We have already heard that, back in April 2002, the Institute of Chartered Accountants complained that the supposed benefits of merger had simply not been achieved even three years after the merger had taken place. The institute highlighted the potential benefits that the Government had mentioned: reducing the burdens on business and people; sharing experience, knowledge and skills in combating avoidance; making better use of resources; enabling a more joined-up approach to customer service; and achieving a gradual alignment of tax and national insurance rules.
  However, areas of concern were also highlighted in April 2002: long delays in dealing with correspondence; correspondence sometimes not being dealt with at all; a less than helpful national insurance helpline for employers; lack of consistency between local offices, head offices and the employers' helpline; and national insurance issues and associated problems being downgraded in importance following the merger. Such was the analysis of members of the Institute of Chartered Accountants. Key national insurance personnel appeared to have moved on or left, leaving a gap in the understanding of issues, yet claims for repayment of national insurance had become more complicated. As we have heard, Peter Bickley, the technical manager of the institute's tax faculty, claimed that the national insurance service had deteriorated since the merger, and he described national insurance as the Cinderella of taxes, and called for urgent action to ensure that the objectives of the merger were achieved and the burdens on business reduced.
  There have also been repeated complaints about the national insurance recording system—NIRS2, as it is known. Although there seems to have been some improvement, problems are still being reported. Given that the Bill's purpose, according to Inland Revenue's own press release, is
  "to improve administration of national insurance and statutory payments and to provide a more efficient service to customers",
  206
  it is reasonable to ask the Paymaster General whether she is satisfied that all the criticisms made in April 2002 have now been properly addressed.
  Dawn Primarolo: It was my intention to say, should I catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I will answer with precision every one of the allegations made in 2002.
  Norman Lamb: I am grateful for that helpful intervention.
  Furthermore, on the computer front, we have witnessed all sorts of chaos at the Revenue in recent months regarding the computer systems for the introduction of the new tax credits—a matter on which the Paymaster General gave evidence to the Treasury Committee. We also know that the contract with EDS is not being renewed. Given the problems experienced with NIRS2 and the tax credit system, can the Minister provide any reassurance that those problems are now behind us? Can she clarify the relationship between the various Inland Revenue computer systems and the systems that will go out to tender? Can she give some reassurance about the co-ordination between the different systems to ensure less confusion in future?
  Dawn Primarolo: On that narrow point, I should like to answer the hon. Gentleman's question now. As he knows, the NIRS2 computer was commissioned and brought in by the previous Government; the present Government unfortunately had to sort out the mess. The system is now stable and is working effectively. It supplies the necessary information to the national insurance system and is part of the wider contract. The hon. Gentleman also referred to tax credits, but he will be pleased to hear that the two systems are not connected. As I said, we now have a stable, operational system, thanks to the Labour Government clearing up the mess of the previous Conservative Government.
  Norman Lamb: I am grateful for that reassurance, but I have to say that I have heard reports of continuing problems with NIRS2. I hear what she says—that all the problems have been resolved.
  Dawn Primarolo: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his graciousness in giving way again. He will find that there have been no problems with the operation of the computer system. Other problems took several years to clear up because of the initial failure under the previous Government. That was connected with contributions, but the problems have now been overcome. As for the operation of the system, the computer platform is stable and operates effectively.
  Mr. Ruffley: The hon. Gentleman sat on the Treasury Sub-Committee, which produced a fine volume: "Inland Revenue Matters: Tenth Report of Session 2002–03". That all-party committee includes Labour Members, and it took evidence from the Paymaster General in the course of producing the report. The last sentence of the report states:
  "This inquiry has raised serious questions about how the Department has been led."

  207
  What does that say about the Paymaster General's performance?
  Norman Lamb: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of the conclusion reached by that all-party committee. Certainly, the concerns raised during the Treasury Sub-Committee's inquiry into a number of matters at the Inland Revenue gave rise to serious concern about the Department's leadership. Questions were asked about whether there should have been resignations at that time. Serious concerns have been expressed about leadership at the Revenue in connection with matters such as the issue of contribution notices, the Mapeley Steps scandal, and the introduction of tax credits. The Paymaster General has tried to reassure the House about the Revenue's administration of national insurance, but we are not convinced that things will be as smooth in the future as she has suggested.
  As for the principle of the merger of tax and national insurance, the Government have chosen to take an incremental approach to reducing differences between tax and national insurance. They want to improve and, where possible, merge the administration of those two taxes. However, the Bill has little to do with what many people consider desirable—the full merger of tax and national insurance. The Paymaster General dealt with that briefly in response to an intervention, and it was also referred to in the discussion document issued in 2000.
  I recognise that significant policy issues had to be addressed if merger were to be pursued. There would be significant distributional effects, and the future of the contributory principle would need to be looked at. However, the 2000 discussion document referred to a report published in March of that year by the payroll subgroup of the Better Regulation Task Force, which described full-scale merger as a "long-term goal".
  One possible indication of the Government's intent was the 1 per cent. rise in employers' national insurance contribution applicable above the upper earnings limit that was introduced in the 2002 Budget, as the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford noted. That increase was pretty much indistinguishable from a rise in income tax. It conveniently avoided any technical breach of the manifesto commitment not to increase income tax, even though its effect was precisely the same. However, was it also a move towards the eventual merger of tax and national insurance?
  Rob Marris: The 1 per cent. increase in employers' national insurance contributions was not akin to a 1 per cent. increase in income tax. It was levied with the specific purpose of funding the NHS. Two thirds of NHS spending goes on pensioners, who by and large do not pay national insurance contributions. The rise was an example of this generation paying for the health of the previous generation—and a good thing too.
  Norman Lamb: I am grateful for that intervention, and perhaps I should clarify what I said. For employees, there is no difference between an increase in national insurance contributions and an increase in income tax, and savers also got off scot free as a result of the way the increase was introduced.
  208
  Will the Paymaster General confirm whether it is Government policy to pursue merger as a long-term goal? Is that the Government's ultimate objective? I hope that she will provide some clarity on that. If so, is any time scale envisaged? What is the Treasury's state of mind on the issue? What view does it take of the potential savings for employers arising from a full merger of the two systems? Has a regulatory impact assessment been made of the effect of full merger?
  I turn now to what has been left out of the Bill, which is another matter raised by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford. As I said earlier, the Bill deals with only one of the issues included in the Revenue's 2000 discussion paper. It does not deal with ways to make it easier for employers to cut national insurance contributions correctly, with the definition of pay for tax and national insurance purposes and the differences of approach between the two taxes, with the assessment of national insurance contributions for UK employees seconded abroad and the guidance offered by the Revenue for people in those circumstances, or with the assessment of national insurance contributions on payment of vouchers made by third parties.
  It may be that all those matters have been dealt with in other ways, such as through secondary legislation or amendments to the guidance issued by the Revenue. However, I hope that the Paymaster General will clarify the position on each of those matters, so that we can understand exactly where things stand in the wake of the consultation exercise held two and half years ago.
  The 2000 discussion paper referred to a plan to introduce secondary legislation to implement a number of specific reforms by April 2001. Was that time scale achieved? On page 18 of the response document, it is noted that there was general agreement among those who responded to the consultation that a proposal to transfer from class 1 to class 1A the liability for national insurance contributions in respect of funded unapproved retirement benefits schemes should be adopted. The Inland Revenue responded that that would be dealt with through changes to primary legislation. Has that happened?
  It would be helpful if the Paymaster General provided us with a checklist showing progress on all the intended reforms covered in the consultation process and referred to in various other contexts. Has guidance been amended, where that has been necessary and where it has been suggested that that would happen? Has secondary legislation been introduced to deal with other matters raised in the consultation process? Are there any other outstanding issues that require primary legislation? Does the Paymaster General envisage introducing any other measures, by either primary or secondary legislation, that have not been dealt with in consultation and which are currently in the pipeline? In other words, is this the end of the reform process, or are further changes envisaged in the relatively near future?
  I shall make a few comments about the Bill's specific provisions. Clauses 1 to 4 deal with national insurance payable on securities, and make it easier for employers to recover contributions, by agreement, from employees and ex-employees. They also enable employers and employees to agree that the employee should pick up the tab for the employer's national insurance payments, in circumstances where the employer awards restricted and convertible securities to an employee. I understand that

  209
  the Paymaster General dealt with that point. There is a potential unpredictability about the scale of the national insurance liability when such securities are issued to an employee, because of the unknown value of the securities in the future. I can see that that could act as a disincentive to employers who might contemplate offering securities to their employees. We share the Government's objective of encouraging wider share ownership, so the removal of that disincentive is welcome.
  An exchange of interventions in the speech by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford addressed the point about any link with the 1 per cent. increase. It is clear from the Government's regulatory impact assessment that there is a direct link. It states:
  "Until 5 April 2003, it was unlikely that primary NICs would be due on share-based earnings as, typically, employees would have paid up to the UEL on their regular cash earnings. But from 6 April 2003 there has been a further 1 per cent. due on earnings that exceed the UEL. The two measures in this clause are intended to remove some of the restrictions placed on the employer's ability to recover the primary NICs payable with respect to securities-based payments of earnings."
  It would helpful if the Paymaster General, in the spirit of openness, could confirm that link when she responds to the debate.
  Clauses 5 and 6 deal with aligning the periods of notice required for distraint action, as between tax and national insurance. The old social security legislation provided for a 30-day notice period in respect of NI, compared to a seven-day period for tax—14 days in Scotland. It is eminently sensible to reduce the notice period for NI to the same length as for tax. As the Paymaster General said, that is in accordance with the recommendations made by Professor John Beatson QC in his review of bailiff law.
  Clauses 7 and 8 deal with the powers of Inland Revenue officers to gather information for tax and NI purposes. In essence, the Bill unifies the powers relating to tax and NI and in the process removes overbearing powers that exist in relation to NI. In a separate consultation exercise conducted by the Revenue on that specific matter, respondents had said that the NI powers were "disproportionate with few safeguards". It is a rare but welcome moment when Government actually reduce their powers in relation to the citizen. That should be celebrated and I congratulate the Paymaster General on that achievement.
  Clauses 9 and 10 deal with the compliance regime for statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay. In contrast with the regimes for tax, NI and the new schemes for statutory paternity pay and statutory adoption pay, if employers fail to meet their obligations under the SSP and SMP schemes, they commit a criminal offence. All the other regimes provide for civil penalties. Again, the Government have recognised that criminal offences are, in their words,
  "wholly disproportionate to the compliance risk".
  The proposal therefore is to replace the criminal offences with civil penalties, which is to be welcomed, with two caveats. First, concern has been expressed recently about the Government's tendency to raise extra cash by way of increasing penalties for all sorts of breaches of administrative rules. Can the Paymaster
  210
  General confirm what plans the Government have for the size of the penalties in the future? Will they be pegged and what guidance will be given on the size of the penalty, up to the maximum provided for, in any particular case? Secondly, the burden of proof with a civil penalty is of course lower than that with a criminal offence, and the penalty would be imposed by the Revenue rather than a court. Can the Paymaster General reassure us that the powers will be used in a proportionate way? I am aware of the powers of the Revenue with regard to compliance with the national minimum wage. Are the powers in that area consistent with those proposed in the Bill? Is there now a consistency of approach to compliance in all the various areas of the Revenue's powers?
  The discussion document mentioned an anomaly in that there was no power for Revenue officers to inspect an employer's records on SSP and SMP. Legislation was promised—on page 6 of the responses paper—to provide such a power. Has that been achieved?
  I realise that I have covered a number of technical issues, which is inevitable in a technical measure, so it might not be possible for Ministers to provide answers to all my questions today, but I should be grateful if the Paymaster General would give an undertaking to write to me, especially given the fact that the Standing Committee is due to sit soon, with answers to each issue I have raised that she is unable to deal with today.
  The Bill is a small but important step in the right direction and we shall support it. It is long overdue; I am amazed at how long the Government have taken to introduce it, although I appreciate that primary legislation is required, which takes longer than secondary legislation. However, one hoped that it would have been drafted a little sooner, given the problems that the issue causes for employers. Despite the fact that the Bill is overdue, however, it is none the less welcome.
  3.35 pm
  Mr. David Ruffley: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk), the shadow Paymaster General, on his admirably lucid and trenchant speech. His forensic ability will be a great help to us all in exposing the technical weaknesses in the Bill and ensuring that they are thoroughly scrutinised in Committee.
  Although the Bill is by common consent a technical measure, it nevertheless illuminates how the Government run the national insurance system. First, clauses 1 and 2 were necessitated primarily by the unintended consequence of one of the Chancellor's many stealth taxes.
  Secondly, clauses 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, which relate to powers to check employers' records, to the recovery of national insurance contribution debts and to a civil penalty system for statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay, are all changes that have been brought forward in an extremely dilatory and tardy fashion. The intervening delays that successive Labour Ministers have tolerated have been greatly to the disadvantage of hard-pressed businesses. A truly business-friendly Government would have acted sooner to cure the deficiencies under which those businesses have laboured.

  211
  Finally, it is regrettable, although not surprising given the Government's track record on abusing the House, that when we vote on Second Reading, important regulations will not have been made available to us and we shall not have debated them in the Chamber. I refer especially to regulations under clauses 1 and 2 relating to NICs on security-based remuneration and employees' liability. We should at least have seen those regulations in draft. I deprecate the Government's pathological tendency to try to make changes—whether technical or otherwise—through secondary legislation, which, almost of necessity, is likely to receive less than thorough scrutiny.
  I begin the body of my remarks with some comments on clauses 1 and 2, which will be of particular interest to companies and individuals who believe in employee share ownership. At present, as I hope we all know, an employer can make a security-based payment of earnings to an employee, but in the case of an options scheme, NICs liability will not arise until the options to acquire securities are exercised. In that eventuality, an employer will be liable to the Revenue not only for the secondary NICs liability, which is the amount that an employer pays, in a secondary role, on an employee's gain, but also for the primary NICs liability—the employee's own NICs liability.
  Until 5 April 2003, as the regulatory impact assessment demonstrates, it was extremely unlikely that primary NICs, which were employees' liability, would be due on any share-based earnings because, in most cases, employees would have paid their fair whack up to the upper earnings limit, beyond which—before April 2003—they paid no national insurance. I hope that that point is clear to the Paymaster General, as she did not appear to grasp it during earlier interventions.
  In practice, as the regulatory impact assessment makes clear, employers were not liable for the primary NICs liabilities of their employees because there were none above the upper earnings limit. That seems a fairly straightforward point. What the Paymaster General further does not understand, although it is spelt out in her own regulatory impact assessment, is that all that changed after 6 April 2003, when the Chancellor stealthily introduced a further one percentage point charge on earnings that exceed the upper earnings limit.
  I am afraid that I will have to repeat the rather mealy-mouthed language of the regulatory impact assessment, which talks about the introduction of the 1 per cent. NICs charge on employees' primary NICs liability above the upper earnings limit having an unintended impact on employers' ability to recover from employees the primary NICs arising on non-cash payments of earnings such as securities. Nothing could be clearer. The phrase "unintended impact" does not do full justice to the Chancellor's shameless tax-hiking cynicism in sneaking in that stealth tax, about which nothing at all was said during the 2001 general election campaign—an election, incidentally, in which tax issues figured prominently.
  During that general election campaign, Mr. Jeremy Paxman asked the Prime Minister on "Newsnight", on 22 May 2001,
  "whether any reasonable person wouldn't suppose that you…propose to increase national insurance contributions."
  The Prime Minister replied, "They shouldn't." Yet less than one year later, in the 2002 Budget, the Chancellor said that with effect from April 2003, he would raise the
  212
  rate of NICs paid by employees from 10 to 11 per cent., with an extra one percentage point on earnings above the upper earnings limit. In today's figures, that applies to anyone on class 1 contributions earning more than £30,940 a year. That was certainly a breach of Labour Ministers' oft-repeated pledge that they would preserve the upper earnings ceiling.
  Labour Members should mark well the fact that in our report on the 2002 Budget, the all-party Treasury Committee—I repeat that it includes Labour Members—said about the new charge:
  "To insist…that the upper earnings ceiling remains intact seems to us mere sophistry. We note this departure from previous practice could be viewed as a move of the National Insurance contribution system towards that of general taxation."
  In other words, in practice, in the real world, it is an increase for top-rate taxpayers. That stealth tax hit employees above the upper earnings limit, who are paying an extra one percentage point, but the crucial point, which I hope has been exposed by my hon. Friend the shadow Paymaster General, is that employees and employers were caught, many for the first time, by that new tax hike.
  Currently, some employers can, with employees' agreement, retain some of the securities granted to employees to cover any primary NICs liability that that employer has to make. However—I have to say, with respect, that this was not properly explained by the Paymaster General—that ability to enter into an agreement is subject to some very serious, onerous eligibility criteria. It can apply only to security-based earnings provided, first, that they are paid to former employees; secondly, that the payment is in the same year that they cease to work for that employer; and thirdly, that the employee has insufficient monetary earnings from which the employer can recover that primary liability. That is the position at the moment.
  The proposals in clauses 1 and 2 are necessary to relieve more employers than satisfy those criteria from the new tax burden that they have been saddled with as a result of the Chancellor's NIC hike. Those clauses will also allow the retention of securities by an employer to pay primary NICs liabilities arising on securities-based payments to former employees in the year after they cease to work for that employer. Are the provisions technically sensible, as I have outlined them? Yes, the clauses are welcome. However, we are forced inexorably to the conclusion that they would not have been as necessary if the Chancellor had controlled his tax addiction, rather than jacking up national insurance over the upper earnings limit.
  The clauses will make it possible for more employers, with the agreement of employees, to withhold an amount in securities equal to the value of the primary NICs liability that they pay on behalf of those employees. The problem that we face this afternoon is that clauses 1 and 2 rely on regulations, so if we are to be able to answer two important questions about the agreements, we need to see the regulations. How exactly may an agreement be entered into between an employer and employee? Secondly, what specific types of earnings will be the subject of any of the agreements? I think that the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) touched on that point when he gave us his definition of

  213
  earnings, and mentioned the lack of one in the Bill. We do not know, because the regulations have not been produced.
  I looked for enlightenment in all the literature that the Inland Revenue has produced for the debate and turned—probably unwisely—to the frequently asked questions section of the Inland Revenue internet site. One question is:
  "Once the bill becomes an act can I ask employees to enter into these agreements?"
  The answer given on the website is that an employer
  "will be able to enter into these agreements once the bill receives Royal Assent, and the Clauses are given effect by a treasury commencement order and the necessary supporting Regulations are in force. These will be laid before Parliament following Royal Assent."
  The form that the agreements will take is a material question for the House to consider on Second Reading, but we do not know that because we do not have the regulations in front of us. We do not know whether the agreements will be in a standard form. We do not know whether they will be written in plain English so that employers will be given the comfort that their interests will not be compromised and that they will not let themselves in for excessive liabilities above those for which they should be liable.
  I assume that the regulations will be detailed and will cover such points, because there would otherwise be no need for the Government to delay revealing the details and keep us in suspense until Royal Assent. If the matter is straightforward, why can we not see the draft regulations now? Perhaps the Paymaster General will enlighten us on the form of the agreements and tell us why she has not published the regulations that will govern them.
  Mr. Prisk: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. Friend's flow, because he is making an extremely powerful point, but one problem is that there has been a five-year delay. Does he share my bewilderment and concern that although the Government have had five years to introduce the measures, they are now saying, "We need to get this through now, put a timetable on the Committee and rush ahead", when we do not know the content of the regulations?
  Mr. Ruffley: I share my hon. Friend's concern but I do not share his surprise. We have become used to the Minister who oversees the department of the Inland Revenue having lapses of concentration—to put it mildly. I urge those who think that that is a partisan point not to say so, because her recent tenure in office overseeing the Inland Revenue department is comprehensively criticised by an all-party group—the Treasury Committee, which includes a preponderance of Labour Members. I shall quote again the last sentence of our 2002–03 report on the Inland Revenue, which said:
  "This inquiry has raised serious questions about how the Department has been led"—
  a reference to the Mapeley shambles, NIC notification periods and the tax credit shambles. I share my hon. Friend's concern about the tardiness with which some of the department's business is brought to the House.
  214
  Clauses 7 and 8, relating to officers' powers to check employers' records, illustrate a further slackness in the Government's management of our national insurance system. National insurance contributions and the administration of statutory sick pack and statutory maternity pay were the responsibility of the Contributions Agency. That was transferred to the Revenue in 1999. We were told at the time that that would ensure an alignment of the tax and NIC rules of administration and that everything would be much more efficient, businesslike and clear. However, as the Institute of Chartered Accountants said in April 2002, on the third anniversary of the merger, progress has been slow. The ICA was justified in making that criticism.
  We were given a further commitment by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 21 March 2000:
  "The Inland Revenue will set out options for ensuring that its officers have common and appropriate powers for their examination of employers' tax and NICs records"—
  the issue covered by clauses 7 and 8. That statement was made in the Inland Revenue Budget press notice REV10, comically entitled "Helping to Get it Right". In July 2001, the Revenue published a summary of the comments it had received following its much vaunted consultation issued in June 2000. Although clauses 7 and 8 are welcome and seem technically adequate for reducing inspection powers relating to national insurance that do not exist for straightforward income tax inspection, it tells us a lot about Treasury Ministers that it has taken the best part of five years to make the change, as my hon. Friend the shadow Paymaster General observed.
  The different inspection powers for income tax and national insurance have been difficult for some employers to understand. Clauses 7 and 8 achieve alignment. In particular, clause 7 dispenses with the powers that allow officers involved in NIC inspection to enter premises, question anyone found on those premises and compel them to provide information and documents without first subjecting those requests to third-party scrutiny. I add my voice to that of other hon. Members and ask the Paymaster General to explain in more detail how future third-party scrutiny might occur. Above all, perhaps she will explain why the misalignment rectified in the two clauses was first flagged up as something that required action during the passage of the Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc.) Act 1999. That is hardly a great advertisement for the efficiency of Treasury Ministers.
  The concern about efficiency, and the way in which the Paymaster General dispatches business, was raised, as I said, in "Inland Revenue Matters", the 10th report of the 2002–03 Session produced by the Treasury Sub-Committee. It exposed not just one but a catalogue of administrative failures in the Revenue, oversight of which is provided by the Paymaster General herself. In relation to the Mapeley fiasco, we concluded:
  "The conflicting evidence given to the Committee by the Chairman of the Inland Revenue and the Paymaster General has not resolved the vital question of whether in future the tax haven status of bidders for Government contracts can or cannot be taken into account."
  Our Committee then examined last year's tax credit shambles—there is no other word for it. Let me remind the House that the chairman of the Revenue is the

  215
  gentleman responsible for the fair and proper administration of the national insurance contributions system. He had few answers as to why the tax credit system ground to a halt, and, to be honest, his evidence did not inspire confidence in his office. As was made clear, by 2 July 2003 nearly a quarter of a million applications had not been resolved, more than 100,000 unresolved applications had been received more than a month earlier, and as a result of delays the Inland Revenue had to make nearly 200,000 emergency payments. In addition, more than 400,000 applicants received their first payment of tax credits on a date later than the one of which they had been notified.
  At the time, the Paymaster General offered her commiseration, but not her resignation. The fact that a flagship project for which Treasury Ministers were responsible disintegrated as it did says a lot about the way in which Treasury Ministers run the Revenue.
  The third and in many ways most potent criticism in that report on the Revenue and its Ministers focused on the national insurance contributions deficiency notice failure. The notices are a means of informing individuals about gaps in their contribution record in any given year, so that, if they want to, they can make up those contributions. Doing so will enable them to ensure that they get their full basic state pension entitlement, so it is an important notice—or so one might have thought. Amazingly, however, no Minister was consulted or informed of the decision, taken in 1998, to suspend NICs deficiency notices. Admittedly, the responsibility belonged to the Contributions Agency, but that agency's functions had passed to the Treasury, via the Department of Social Security.
  Following the transfer of responsibility for that important function to the Inland Revenue in April 1999, the Paymaster General became the responsible Minister. It is astonishing that it took her officials until March 2003—the best part of four years—to inform her of the problem and its significance. As our Committee reported, that was not a happy state of affairs and it did not inspire confidence in the Revenue. That is why in our conclusions we stated that serious questions had been raised about communication between the Minister and her senior officials at the Inland Revenue.
  I mention those failures in the context of a Bill that purports to make the NICs system more efficient and better for the people who pay that levy, whether they are employers or employees. Many of the clauses are tardy responses to long-standing problems, and one might ask senior Inland Revenue officials and the Paymaster General herself why from time to time there appears to be a culture of complacency in that important area of public policy, which affects individual families as well as wealth-creating businesses. I make my comments more in sorrow than in anger, and certainly in the hope that a clear message will be sent to Ministers and Revenue officials that Parliament is watching them. Only then will their performance improve when implementing the provisions of the Bill—if, indeed, it is passed.
  On a less critical note, I hope, I shall close by raising a point that Deloitte unearthed in its pre-Budget analysis in December 2003. In connection with the Bill, it noted the lack of any legislation for funded unapproved retirement benefits schemes, or FURBS. It noted that when the Bill was published on 27 November 2003, the anticipated draft NIC legislation on FURBS
  216
  was missing. Deloitte said that it understood that the intention to effect a class IA liability on employer contributions from 6 April 2004 was overtaken by the Government's move to simplify the tax treatment of pension schemes from 2005.
  Deloitte observed that the Government's pension proposals had been published, and it appeared that from 6 April 2005 there would be no NICs on employer contributions to FURBS, either class 1 or class 1A, and in addition that there would be no NIC charge on benefits paid out of FURBS if those payments were within registered scheme limits, the employer relationship had ceased and the benefits were consistent with the new pension benefit rules. Deloitte observed that that looked as if it were good news for national insurance contributions in relation to FURBS after 6 April 2005—but the business community is not entirely sure that that reading of the situation is correct, and wants to see more detail relating to FURBS and NICs.
  If Deloitte is right, the corollary is that the contested Revenue claim to class 1 NICs on employer contributions to FURBS will continue for another year. Can the Paymaster General shed some light on that narrow but important technical point?
  In conclusion, I believe the Bill includes provisions that should have been passed years ago, or which are needed now to undo the damage caused by the pernicious tax-raising consequences of the Chancellor's own actions. As such, the provisions are not, in themselves, wholly objectionable. Nevertheless, the Paymaster General needs to answer the detailed questions posed to her this afternoon by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford and me.
  4.2 pm
  Dawn Primarolo: With the leave of the House, I shall respond to this afternoon's interesting debate. I shall respond particularly to points made by Opposition Members on the imposition of the 1 per cent. national insurance rise effected last year. First, however, it is important to reiterate the purpose of the Bill.
  The Bill takes forward the Government's commitment that the Inland Revenue will work with employers' representatives and others on reducing technical differences between the administration of tax and national insurance. It extends employers' options for meeting their national insurance contributions liability when paying earnings in the form of shares or other securities, and it helps protect employees' rights to statutory sick and maternity pay by improving the means of tackling employers who fail to meet their obligations.
  The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) asked me a number of questions, first with regard to the accusations made by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in its report of April 2002. I confirmed in an intervention that I would answer those points. I shall also give the hon. Gentleman the time line that he requested, to demonstrate to the House that much has been done in the past five years. Not only did the Government, on their election, merge the Contributions Agency with the Inland Revenue—which the previous Government failed to do for 18 years—but there has been steady progress across the board in achieving the objectives that we set. A great deal has been achieved

  217
  since 1999—and, indeed, since April 2002, when the Institute of Chartered Accountants made its observations. The institute referred to the integration of national insurance contributions into the general work of the Inland Revenue and welcomed it, saying that there were benefits and that it had resulted in a much greater awareness of national insurance issues across the board—something that the previous Government totally failed to achieve.
  The first two points made by the Institute of Chartered Accountants related to long delays in dealing with correspondence and a failure to deal with it. I think that the performance speaks for itself, however, and I shall give the House the details. The performance of the national insurance contributions office, or NICO, in dealing with the public has been shown to be at the very highest level. Its last report, published in November 2003—the hon. Member for North Norfolk is free to go back through its previous reports—showed that more than 93 per cent. of post was dealt with completely and correctly within 15 days, and that more than 98 per cent. of phone calls were answered within 20 seconds. I wonder how many MPs' offices manage such a response rate. More than 93 per cent. of complaints to the director were investigated and dealt with within 15 days. That deals with the first two allegations.
  The next two allegations related to the employers helpline and the lack of consistency. Again, the issues relate to procedures and structures that this Government have put in place. If hon. Members wish to know how bad things were, they merely have to look at the situation pre-1997 and the difficulties that employers experienced at that time. There is now a dedicated national insurance contribution contact centre in addition to the employers helpline. The staff are trained to handle both national insurance and tax aspects of employers' queries. The report refers to a period almost two years ago when the helpline was not fully established. I ask hon. Members to ponder for a split second how long it takes to conduct training and to put such facilities in place, fully equip them and make them operational. As I said, the previous Government had 18 years and did not manage it. The feedback is currently very positive. The Inland Revenue is continually updating and reviewing guidance to ensure consistency across the Revenue and the national insurance contributions office. We have a better guidance project and are in consultation with the public and employers to ensure that the highest standards of guidance are available to staff and the public.
  I turn now to accusations Nos. 5 and 6, which are that national insurance issues and problems appear to have been downgraded and that key national insurance personnel appear to have moved on or left. There is a full integration of employer compliance reviews, with all employer compliance officers fully trained in national insurance. That is precisely what the employers said that they needed. National insurance contribution knowledge forms part of a mandatory examination programme of inspectors who will be involved in dealing with medium-sized and large businesses. A rolling programme of national insurance training is being undertaken to ensure that inspectors who completed
  218
  their initial training before the merger took place now have knowledge that goes across the whole organisation.
  How long do hon. Members seriously think that it takes to bring all that information together—one minute, or two or three minutes? That is functioning now and that result has been achieved. Staff involved in handling queries at inquiry centres have also been trained so that there is a point of contact for employers—precisely the objectives of the merger. As I said, a dedicated national insurance contact centre has been established, in addition to the employers helpline. New teams dealing with expatriate workers are trained to handle both their tax and national insurance inquiries. That is an improved service. It is going on now and it has been doing so over the past five years.
  Mr. Prisk: Will the Paymaster General give way?
  Dawn Primarolo: No, I should like to make some progress.
  Then we come to the accusation that claims for the repayment of national insurance have become more complicated—but there have been no such changes. In fact, the merger has allowed us to simplify the procedure by enabling national insurance staff handling repayments of class 4 national insurance contributions to have access to the self-assessment system so that they can quickly verify the amount overpaid through self-assessment without having to make separate inquiries to tax personnel. And we have enhanced the system to enable the automatic issue of application forms for repayment when someone has paid more than the maximum contribution in class 1.
  Those are issues that have been dealt with in consultation. Opposition Members make it sound as though nothing has been done, because they choose to believe that rather than looking at the facts.
  Mr. Prisk rose—
  Dawn Primarolo: I will not give way.
  Opposition Members repeatedly suggested that the list of aims for the merger had been left filed in some corner with no action being taken. The hon. Member for North Norfolk helpfully suggested that perhaps a timeline or checklist would help, so I shall give it to him. We received several proposals, and have acted on all but one. The first was that we should adopt the Inland Revenue tax information powers for all classes of national insurance, statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay. That is in the Bill. The next was that we should adopt Inland Revenue inspection powers for SSP and SMP. That is in the Bill. The next was that we should repeal section 110ZA of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. That is in the Bill. The next was that we should make some minor changes to the powers to inspect employers' records contained in regulations to make the national insurance regulations match the tax regulations. That was done in 2000. The next was that we should ease the calculation of class 1 national insurance on marginal items of pay—for example, expenses—by giving employers more time to process payments. That was achieved by amending guidance issued to employers. The next was that we

  219
  should simplify the procedure for dealing with arrears and errors involving class 1 NICs by using estimation, while protecting individuals' contributory benefit entitlement. That was achieved by issuing new guidance on the calculation of NICs to Revenue staff.
  The next proposal was that we should align the definition of pay for the purposes of tax. We are making that alignment where possible, as opportunities present themselves, in consultation with employers. The next was that we should move the national insurance charge from class 1 to class 1A on employer payments into FURBS—funded unapproved retirement benefit schemes. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) asked why that was not in the Bill; I shall return to that in due course. The next was that we should extend the deadline for payment of NICs due in respect of employees seconded abroad. That was done with effect from the 2002–03 tax year. The next was that there should be better guidance on the tax and national insurance liability of remuneration packages of employees seconded abroad. That has been taken on board as part of the review of residence and domicile. The next was that we should make minor amendments to national insurance regulations to align tax and NICs treatment of certain travel expenses. That was completed in 2000 through regulations. The final proposal was that we should extend the scope of PAYE settlement agreements to cover third parties, which would allow third parties to account for tax and national insurance on payments that they make to the employees of others. That matter is still outstanding.
  Having suggested that nothing has been done, the hon. Member for North Norfolk asked about initiatives. I can give him examples of help being given directly to employers. They are being encouraged to make greater use of new technology instead of the traditional paper that causes many of the mistakes that come back to bite them later. That is being achieved by making online services more comprehensive and user-friendly, and by providing electronic guidance. Our business support team workshop provides targeted support to employers through one-to-one visits, enabling employers who have made mistakes to get themselves on to surer ground for the future and to avoid unnecessary obligations through promoting dispensation and PAYE settlement agreements. There are employer helplines and nationwide networks of local offices that can advise on all queries. I could go on.
  That is not a record of this Government doing nothing, as Opposition Members suggest. Their description of inaction is a correct description of what they did when they had the opportunity to change things but did nothing.
  The hon. Member for North Norfolk asked whether the Government believed that there should he a structural alignment of tax and national insurance. If he reads the employers' observations in the various studies, he will see that there are very mixed views on that issue. The biggest problem is to determine whether removing national insurance would place more obligations on employers by requiring a flag in the system relating to entitlements to contributory benefits. The Government are not attracted to the structural alignment that he suggests, for all the reasons that are widely known and outlined in the literature. Our approach is to continue to work with employers' representatives and others to
  220
  examine opportunities to align the tax and national insurance rules at a practical level, where possible, while always having regard to the importance of protecting individual benefit entitlements.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked about the penalties regime. The £300 penalty is the maximum that could be charged for each incident. In regard to statutory sick pay and maternity pay, if someone were to fail to produce their SSP records for 25 employees, the maximum penalty would be a total of £7,500. The penalties must also be proportionate to what has taken place, and cases in which an employer has failed to pay SSP or SMP do not usually involve penalties of more than a few hundred pounds. Clearly, however, we must be able to deal with such cases.
  Norman Lamb: Will the Paymaster General clarify whether determining the scale of the penalty is provided for in guidance or in regulations? I hope that she will forgive my ignorance, but I should be grateful if she would clarify how guidance is given to officers on determining the scale of the penalty.
  Dawn Primarolo: It would have to be taken into consideration whether an employer had made a genuine, and quite minor, mistake. In such cases, it is best that the mistake is just corrected. The example that I gave earlier, however, involving the complete failure of an employer to pay a large number of employees without explanation, was not a minor mistake. In such cases, we need to ensure that the penalties bite. They are not intended to be used in cases of genuine mistakes, of which the tax system has a great deal of experience, when employers and employees have done their best to get things right. Any penalty we sought in such cases, if we sought one, would have to be proportionate to what had gone wrong. There is no automatic trigger. The aim is to ensure compliance and for there to be no need to use the penalties, rather than the reverse. We do not want to assume that whatever penalties are available will be used.
  Several points were made about the Government's raising national insurance by 1 per cent. It is important to remind the House—although this matter is not connected to the Bill, it was mentioned in the debate, so I shall respond—that the 1 per cent. increase, which was supported by the general public, was the biggest ever sustained growth and investment in the national health service, amounting to more than £40 billion extra being spent until 2007–08, compared with 2002–03. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor pointed out, it spreads the burden as widely and as fairly as possible, matching costs to ability to pay. Pensioners are not affected by those changes, as they do not pay national insurance. That ensures that the national health service remains free at the point of need, and accessible to all irrespective of income—I understand clearly that those are principles to which the Conservative party does not subscribe. That money pays for 80,000 more nurses—
  Mr. Ruffley: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Dawn Primarolo: No. That money pays for 80,000 more nurses, midwives and health visitors, 25,000 more doctors and 100 new hospitals in the United Kingdom—extra spending that is widely welcomed.
  Mr. Ruffley: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Dawn Primarolo: No. With which bit of "No" is the hon. Gentleman struggling—the n or the o?

  221
  Hon. Gentlemen sought to suggest that the arrangements in the Bill were made because of the 1 per cent. increase, which was not a stealth tax and which was clearly demonstrated and explained and widely supported. The issue at stake—as I tried to explain, but which they could not quite grasp—is that the change is necessary because any employee can receive shares whether or not they have earned above the earnings limit. The additional 1 per cent. is payable only for those earning above the upper earnings limit. Of course, those employers will be particularly affected, and the explanatory material on that has been absolutely straightforward. To say that the 1 per cent. has caused us to table the clause, however, is simply wrong. It is not the case.
  Mr. Ruffley: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Dawn Primarolo: No, I want to make progress.
  During the debate, hon. Gentlemen sought to raise a range of issues that are not connected to the Bill, to which I now seek to respond. The hon. Members for North Norfolk and for Bury St. Edmunds raised the issue of funded unapproved retirement benefit schemes and their absence from the Bill. We were considering including in the Bill a change to the national insurance treatment of payments to FURBS, which would have moved the national insurance liability from class 1 to class 1A. The proposal has recently been overtaken, however, by our thinking on the future of unapproved schemes under the simplified regime for pensions and the Government's pension simplification proposals published on 10 December 2003. Under those circumstances, given the potentially short-lived nature of a change in the Bill, I considered it more sensible to await the outcome of the consultation.
  Under the new regime, the national insurance status of payments into non-registered schemes will depend on the benefits paid out of the scheme, rather than being subject to national insurance in all cases. There will be no charge on national insurance contributions when benefits paid out are consistent with the general benefits that can be paid from a registered scheme. That will encourage employers to fund genuine pension benefits. It was on that basis that the proposal was removed.
  The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, whom I thought was an experienced Member of the House—but there we go—knows perfectly well that regulations are produced after a Bill is passed. I can confirm, however, and it is my practice as a Minister in dealing with the Finance Bill and other Bills, that I will be more than happy to provide the Committee with the detail that has been requested on the draft regulations. I sincerely hope to be in a position to make those draft regulations available to the Committee in time for its discussions.
  Mr. Ruffley: When?
  Dawn Primarolo: Before the Bill is completed. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman would wish to have sight of them before that.
  The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) asked what would happen if a family trust divorced from the original family company could no
  222
  longer pay its share-based benefits. I know of only one case of a trust being unable to pay benefits without creating a national insurance liability for the new employer, but if the hon. Gentleman knows of other cases perhaps he will tell me of them. The matter had been discussed at length with officials and with the parties involved. While I appreciate the difficulties, I am sure the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that we should legislate for a single case.
  Mr. Prisk: I am grateful to the Minister for finally giving way. Would she be receptive to submissions on the subject? A number of outside experts—including ProShare, which I know she strongly supports—have made clear their anxieties.
  Dawn Primarolo: I am happy to confirm that I will consider any submissions on issues in the Bill that are made to my officials and subsequently to me, but it is not incumbent on the House to alter primary legislation to correct a matter which a trust has the power to change, or which places a trust in difficulty as a result of its own decisions.
  I am grateful for the opportunity to explain the issues that have arisen today. I look forward to the Committee stage, when we can expect to debate a number of points at more length. Again, I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS AND STATUTORY PAYMENTS 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 National Insurance Contributions and Statutory Payments Bill:
  Committal
  1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
  Standing Committee
  2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on 15th January 2004.
  3. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
  Consideration and Third Reading
  4. 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.
  5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on consideration are commenced.
  6. Sessional Order B (programming committees) made by the House on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
  Other proceedings
  7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further message from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Paul Clark.]
  The House divided: Ayes 306, Noes 145.

  Division No.21]

  [4.27pm

  AYES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Ainger, Nick

  Cummings, John

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

  Alexander, Douglas

  (Copeland)

  Allen, Graham

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Darwen)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  David, Wayne

  Austin, John

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Davis, rh Terry (B ham Hodge H)

  Baird, Vera

  Dawson, Hilton

  Barnes, Harry

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Denham, rh John

  Battle, John

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dismore, Andrew

  Beard, Nigel

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Bennett, Andrew

  Doran, Frank

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Berry. Roger

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Betts, Clive

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Blackman, Liz

  Edwards, Huw

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Efford, Clive

  Blizzard, Bob

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Borrow, David

  Farrelly, Paul

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Fisher, Mark

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Brennan, Kevin

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

  Flint, Caroline

  Wallsend)

  Foster, rh Derek

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Browne, Desmond

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

  Bryant, Chris

  & Rye)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Foulkes, rh George

  Burden, Richard

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Burgon, Colin

  Gardiner, Barry

  Burnham, Andy

  Gerrard, Neil

  Cairns, David

  Gilroy, Linda

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Goggins, Paul

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Grogan, John

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hain, rh Peter

  Casale, Roger

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Caton, Martin

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Challen, Colin

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hanson, David

  Chaytor, David

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Clapham, Michael

  Healey, John

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

  Hendrick, Mark

  Pentlands)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Heppell, John

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Heyes, David

  Chryston)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clelland, David

  Hodge, Margaret

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cohen, Harry

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Coleman, Iain

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

  Connarty, Michael

  Sefton E)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Corston, Jean

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

  Cousins, Jim

  Urmston)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  224

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Illsley, Eric

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Ingram, rh Adam

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  O'Hara, Edward

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

  Olner, Bill

  Highgate)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Organ, Diana

  Jamieson, David

  Owen, Albert

  Jenkins, Brian

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Perham, Linda

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

  Picking, Anne

  Hatfield)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Lynne (Sally Oak)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pound, Stephen

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

  Kemp, Fraser

  E)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Prescott, rh John

  Kidney, David

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

  Purchase, Ken

  Bow)

  Purnell, James

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Lammy, David

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Rammell, Bill

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Lepper, David

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Bellshill)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Anniesland)

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

  Linton, Martin

  NW)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Rooney, Terry

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ruane, Chris

  McCabe, Stephen

  Ruddock, Joan

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  MacDonald, Calum

  Chester)

  McDonnell, John

  Salter, Martin

  MacDougall, John

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McFall, John

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Sawford, Phil

  McIsaac, Shona

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McKechin, Ann

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sheerman, Barry

  MacShane, Denis

  Sheridan, Jim

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Short, rh Clare

  McWalter, Tony

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Soley, Clive

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Southworth, Helen

  Marshall, David (Glasgow

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Shettleston)

  Stevenson, George

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E &

  Martlew, Eric

  Lochaber)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Miliband, David

  Stringer, Graham

  Miller, Andrew

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Moffatt, Laura

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Mole, Chris

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Morgan, Julie

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Mountford, Kali

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Mudie, George

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Truswell, Paul

  225

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Kemptown)

  Winnick, David

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  C)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Woolas, Phil

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Worthington, Tony

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Ward, Claire

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Wyatt, Derek

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Watts, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  White, Brian

  Gillian Merron and

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Paul Clark

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

  Allan, Richard

  Stamford)

  Amess, David

  Doughty, Sue

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Evans, Nigel

  Bacon, Richard

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Baker, Norman

  Fabricant, Michael

  Baldry, Tony

  Flight, Howard

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Flook, Adrian

  Barrett, John

  Forth, rh Eric

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Francois, Mark

  Bellingham, Henry

  Garnier, Edward

  Bercow, John

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Boswell, Tim

  Gidley, Sandra

  Brady, Graham

  Goodman, Paul

  Brazier, Julian

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Grayling, Chris

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Burns, Simon

  Greenway, John

  Burstow, Paul

  Hague, rh William

  Burt, Alistair

  Hammond, Philip

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

  Cameron, David

  Abingdon)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Heald, Oliver

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

  Heath, David

  Barnet)

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Chidgey, David

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Chope, Christopher

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Holmes, Paul

  Collins, Tim

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Cotter, Brian

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Davey. Edward (Kingston)

  Jack, rh Michael

  226

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Selous, Andrew

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

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

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Kincardine)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Lamb, Norman

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Lansley, Andrew

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Streeter, Gary

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Swayne, Desmond

  Lidington, David

  Syms, Robert

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Teather, Sarah

  Maclean, rh David

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Thurso, John

  Malins, Humfrey

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Maples, John

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

  Walter, Robert

  Coldfield)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Moore, Michael

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Weir, Michael

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Whittingdale, John

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Wiggin, Bill

  Ottaway, Richard

  Wilkinson, John

  Page, Richard

  Willetts, David

  Paice, James

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Dinefwr)

  Willis, Phil

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Wilshire, David

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Rendel, David

  (Macclesfield)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Wishart, Pete

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Young, rh Sir George

  Ruffley, David

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Salmond, Alex

  Gregory Barker and

  Sanders, Adrian

  Mr. Mark Field

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Ordered,
  That the draft Charities (Alexandra Park and Palace) Order 2003 be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Gillian Merron.]

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION

    Sixth-form College (Carlisle)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Gillian Merron.]
    4.42 pm
    David Maclean: Cumbria learning and skills council has proposed a new purpose-built sixth-form college in Carlisle, which would have a planned capacity of 1,150. The proposals would mean the end of school sixth forms in the area. Those schools would become schools for 11 to 16-year-olds and the further education college would offer vocational courses while the sixth-form college provided academic courses.
    There are currently seven schools with sixth forms in Carlisle and district and a further education college. The funding for the new college would come from the learning and skills council and it is estimated that it would cost around £12 million. Major criticisms of the proposals have been made locally, stemming from teachers, parents and pupils. The criticisms fall into three broad categories: first, the lack of strategic thinking by the LSC; secondly, the one-size-fits-all approach; and, thirdly, the lack of consultation.
    On the lack of strategic thinking, millions of pounds of public funds have been pumped into school sixth forms in the area over the last 10 or 15 years. With the establishment of a new sixth-form college, they will be closed down and the money will be wasted. The proposal will add 1,000 surplus places, leaving many new buildings empty and possibly even leading to school closures. According to teachers and parents, the LSC appears to have no partnership with Cumbria local education authority. No meaningful dialogue appears to have taken place between the two organisations regarding the proposal. When asked, the LSC has insisted repeatedly that its responsibilities lie in education for students aged between 16 and 19, with the LEA overseeing 11 to 16-year-olds. However, the impact of the proposal on education for 11 to 16-year-olds will be very significant.
    Local people submit that the LSC will tear the guts out of schools such as Caldew school in Dalston, other schools in Carlisle, and the William Howard school in Brampton in my constituency. In the context of tonight's debate, I shall express my particular concern about the latter school. The county council will be left with a shambles, where now there is coherent provision for post-16 education. The LSC seems to be saying, "That has nothing to do with us, guv. Our remit does not cover that." However, that is not joined-up government, and the LSC's approach is not good enough.
    The second area of criticism is the one-size-fits-all approach. Seven school sixth forms will close if the proposal goes ahead. The people of Carlisle and the surrounding district will be left with no choice in the provision of sixth-form education. Parents in Carlisle and the local area have a choice of sixth forms. Even children in my constituency, who face enormous travel difficulties, have a choice. Admittedly, if they opt for a school that is not in the official catchment area they may have a transport problem, but at least they still have a choice. That will be destroyed if this one-size-fits-all approach is implemented.
    228
    Parents and teachers also criticise the proposals because they fail to consider the travelling distances involved for children attending a new sixth-form college in Carlisle. There is a lack of public transport provision for children travelling into Carlisle from surrounding rural communities. Travelling very long distances every day can have a detrimental impact on a child's standard of work.
    The proposals also fail to consider the nature of rural communities, and the benefits that sixth forms, such as the one at William Howard school, can have for local communities. Those benefits include teacher employment and community cohesion and identity. I shall quote the governors of Caldew school in Dalston. They belong to the constituency of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), but they wrote to me because they feel that the argument applies to their school as much as to William Howard school in Brampton. They state:
    "We are not a Carlisle school and serve a far flung rural catchment area. By the definition of the LSC we are serving a super sparse population. Agriculture, tourism and craft industries are important components of the local economy, which centres on small scale businesses. As a school we found ourselves at the epicentre of the Foot and Mouth epidemic of two years ago in Cumbria and welcome the commitment to rural areas which followed in its wake through such organisations as the Rural Action Zone. Sadly, the potential decision to remove our Sixth Form, one of those services critical to our young people's life chances, represents a backward step destined once again to marginalise the needs of the rural community in the interests of perceived cost effectiveness. We can only be dismayed by the negative impact that such a blow would have on local morale."
    The same arguments apply exactly to the William Howard school in my constituency. The proposals also fail to consider that some of the schools affected are very high achieving schools with good participation rates. William Howard school is a successful and high achieving school, as are other schools in the Carlisle district. Its staying-on rate, retention rate and results at A and AS levels are above not only the Cumbria average but the national average, and they have been so for a considerable number of years. The school offers a wide rage of subjects and opportunities at sixth-form level.
    The one-size-fits-all approach to education will not suit all children in the Carlisle and district area. It will not cater for their differing needs. Many children prefer learning in a smaller, more familiar environment.
    The third major criticism of the proposals has to do with the poor consultation. I say that the consultation process has been poor, but most parents and teachers would say that there has been a total lack of consultation. The LSC failed to consult schools in arriving at its proposal. Not one school in the area was visited by a member of the LSC prior to the publication of the proposal. One school for 11 to 16-year-olds—the Lochinvar school—was left out of the consultation altogether.
    I am told that the night that LSC representatives arrived at William Howard school to outline the plans to parents, teachers and pupils was the first time that members of the LSC had walked through the school's doors. I understand that it was the same in other schools in the area. Of course, the LSC claims that it is only consulting on its plan, but it has invented a detailed plan to remove seven sixth forms from schools in the Carlisle area without a single word of consultation beforehand, and that cannot be right.

    229
    Little understanding was shown by members of the LSC of the way in which schools work. There was no acknowledgment of the role of older pupils in school—for example, in working with young pupils in sport, music, drama and paired reading schemes. Older students encourage younger ones to enter further education, and they raise aspirations. In most schools with sixth forms, older pupils—fifth and sixth years—are role models for younger pupils. Key questions were also sidestepped during discussions between local parents and members of the LSC, and that did not encourage much confidence in the proposals.
    My purpose today is to put to the Minister some of the key questions that were asked by parents and governors at William Howard school and were not answered by the LSC. The schools involved have followed up by writing to and e-mailing the LSC to demand answers, but they still have not received replies to their crucial questions. I do not expect the Minister to be able to answer the questions that I have posed tonight and I am sorry that I have not had the chance to give him a long appreciation of my speech—he has had a copy for a few hours only. However, I assume that he will write a long, detailed letter to me that sets out the answers to my questions. That is my preferred option so that I may circulate copies to parents and teachers. The answers are vital if parents, governors, teachers and pupils are to be at least half-persuaded that the LSC takes their concerns seriously and is engaged in genuine consultation.
    I have several questions. First, why did the independent consultant or the LSC not visit William Howard school, or any of the other schools, and speak to the head teacher before drawing up their proposals? Secondly, how do the A-level results at William Howard school compare with the average results of sixth-form colleges in Britain, and do the Minister and the LSC believe that a sixth-form college in Carlisle could improve further on those results? Thirdly, will the Minister or the LSC specify what, if any, lack or inadequacy of sixth-form provision there is at William Howard that a sixth-form college in Carlisle would address or improve?
    Fourthly, when reaching a decision on whether William Howard school should be included in the proposals, will the question whether WHS students would be better off be paramount in the consideration? Fifthly, what additional subjects are likely to be offered at a sixth-form college in Carlisle? Sixthly, what consideration has been given to the very significant issues that would arise relating to school transport from all the outlying areas if the sixth-form class was moved from William Howard school to Carlisle? At the moment, buses that pick up students to take them to William Howard school cover 10, 15, 20 or even 30 miles. If those buses have to add another 12 to 13 miles to get into Carlisle, the journey will become unacceptably long. Seventhly, what assessment has been made of the impact that the proposal will have on attendance rates for children from rural communities in further education? That is related to the previous question, because if children have to travel a much longer distance to a huge new college in Carlisle, it will have an impact on the numbers who decide to enter further education.
    230
    Eighthly, what assessment has been made of the impact that there will be on traffic congestion in Carlisle if the proposal goes ahead? That is not a silly or facetious question. We all know that the centre of Carlisle has a tremendous problem with traffic congestion, and if we add many buses coming in to a new college—which is likely to be placed in the centre of Carlisle—the problems will be enormous. It is not good enough for the LSC to say that that is not a problem for it to consider because it can be sorted out before its plans are finalised.
    Ninthly, what assessment has been made of the impact of the proposal on teachers' jobs in and around Carlisle? Tenthly, what weight will be attached to the fact that if the William Howard sixth form is closed many pupils will have to make journeys of 30 or 40 miles a day if Carlisle is their only option?
    Eleventh, what consideration has been given to the number of surplus places that will be created if all sixth-form education is centred on one college? Furthermore, what discussions has the LSC held—or what discussions does it plan to hold—with Cumbria county council on how to deal with the huge number of surplus places its decision will create? That is a fundamental question, which I submit to the Minister. It goes back to one of the key criticisms of the proposal. Surely, it cannot be right for the LSC to say, "We shall reorganise education for 16 to 19-year-olds in the Carlisle area and here is our master plan. We accept that we shall leave a shambles behind because all the schools and the local education authority will have to sort out their hundreds of surplus places, but it's nothing to do with us. It's not in our remit. We're not interested. We don't care." That is not joined-up government, as I said earlier.
    Twelfth, what consideration has been given to the impact of the proposals on the aspirations of 11 to 16-year-olds in schools that could lose their sixth form? On a linked question, what about the aspirations of teachers? If the proposal goes ahead, no doubt many teachers will want to teach at a sixth-form college. Does that mean that the schools will fight over the best available teachers to teach 11 to 16-year-olds? Everyone will agree that teachers who teach across the whole spectrum of 11 to 19-year-old education are in a better position than those who merely teach one segment.
    Finally, will the LSC consider transitional arrangements whereby if the sixth-form college proposal goes ahead in Carlisle city, the sixth forms in the rural areas can run in tandem for a year or two while the system beds in and the college gets up to speed and reaches the same high standard of education as the current high achieving, well established sixth forms at William Howard and at Caldew in Dalston? I am sure that the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) will not mind my mentioning the latter school.
    If the sixth-form college proves to be any good, parents will no doubt vote with their feet, as they do at present. There will thus be little opposition to the closure of other sixth forms in rural schools in subsequent years if the Carlisle college is all that the LSC cracks it up to be.

    231
    Those are important questions and I hasten to add that none of them was invented by me; they were all put by parents when the LSC visited William Howard to tell them of its proposals. Because the questions were sidestepped and the parents received no answers that evening, they followed them up by e-mail and letters, yet I understand that they still have no satisfactory answers.
    I do not expect the Minister to address those questions tonight; that would be unreasonable. I do not expect the LSC to have thoroughly briefed him on the high-handed, incompetent approach it adopted in Cumbria, but I do expect that, perhaps within three weeks, I shall receive a long, detailed letter from him setting out the answers to the questions.
    As the chairman of governors of William Howard said in her letter to the chairman of the Cumbria LSC:
    "The LSC would have to show beyond any doubt that students currently at William Howard would be better off than they are now to come anywhere near a convincing justification for the inclusion of the school in its proposal and the resulting destruction of what has been established. This it is completely unable to do. The governing body of William Howard School is therefore totally opposed to the inclusion of the school in the proposal for a Sixth Form College in Carlisle. Given all the relevant facts and figures such an inclusion would result in what could only be described as an act of 'educational vandalism'."
    I therefore appeal to the Minister to send the Cumbria LSC back to the drawing board to allow it to think again and withdraw these damaging proposals.
    4.59 pm
    Mr. Eric Martlew: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean) on securing the debate and on using his position as Opposition Chief Whip to provide us with about three hours in which to hold it.
    I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education for spending an hour with me yesterday discussing the proposals. I still have some questions for him; I think that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border may have already asked the first one, but it needs a categorical answer. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the LSC's proposals are only for consultation and that no decision has been taken, either by the Government or the LSC, that they should be the final proposals? Secondly, will my right hon. Friend tell us about the procedure that can be used to support or oppose any LSC proposal before he makes a decision? I realise—I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does too—that we will get few answers out of my right hon. Friend today because, at the end of the day, he will have to take a decision, so we would not expect him to be specific.
    I shall deal quickly with the points made by the right hon. Gentleman. I suspect that we would not be debating this issue if every school in the Carlisle area were as good as William Howard school. Many people were surprised to see William Howard school included in the proposals—I am sure that its inclusion will be discussed—but the fact is that, overall, the number of youngsters who stay on at school and get adequate A-levels in the Carlisle area is below the county and the national averages. The number of youngsters who leave in the lower sixth form is very high in some schools.
    The reality is that we in Carlisle are underachieving, and the LSC is right to point out that problem, but I call its proposal the nuclear option, as it was designed to
    232
    upset the maximum possible number of people. It has achieved that aim to some extent, but it has put the issue on the agenda, when it was on the back burner for 13 or 14 years. The local authority never tackled the problem of underachievement, and I would definitely not support a system that ensured that the youngsters in Carlisle underachieved. We have some very good schools and sixth forms, but some of them underachieve and it would probably be wrong to name them. No one will be taking A-levels at one sixth form this year, and fewer than 10 pupils will do so at another school. The youngsters who have not stayed on may perhaps go into further education or whatever.
    We have a problem, and it needs to be addressed. I have spoken to all the heads teachers and the chairmen of governors of the schools in my constituency. With the exception of one school, which is in favour of the proposals, the rest are against them. I have also talked to the FE college, Carlisle college, which supports the proposals. The head teachers and the chairmen of governors of the other schools, however, do not say that the situation is good. They all accept that there has to be change, but I suspect that that change will depend on the attitude of the head teachers. When the proposals first came out, they were totally opposed to them; they were anti everything. They have now decided to go away and discuss among themselves an alternative to the nuclear option, and I look forward to that alternative being discussed with the LSC and to the LSC coming up with an alternative to its initial proposal.
    Reference has been made to Caldew school, which is in my constituency. I have visited the school and talked to the head teacher and the chairmen of governors, and one of the things that came out—the right hon. Gentleman did not refer to it in his speech—is that between 25 and 30 per cent. of the children who go to that school come from the urban area of Carlisle. Although probably 70 per cent. of the school's pupils come from rural areas, it has a large intake from the urban area. The school welcomes that because it would otherwise struggle with its numbers, and its proportion of children from urban areas will probably increase as the years go on.
    A considerable amount may come from the LSC to improve sixth-form education in the city—the right hon. Gentleman cited a figure of £12 million. I would not like all that money to go away, because I do not accept that our schools have lots of new buildings—some of them are quite old and in need of refurbishment. We need the LSC to be flexible and to provide some of that money—perhaps for a central location or elsewhere—to improve the standards and quality of the buildings in which youngsters are taught.
    I went to the city of Durham to see an alternative proposal to that which has been put forward in my area. Durham has schools for children aged between 11 and 16. Although Lochinvar school in Longtown is such a school, most of our schools are 11 to 18 schools. Durham has a sixth-form centre that is based at a local school but the centre is twice the size of that school. One might initially think that the solution was a political fudge because the council could not agree on which schools to close and open, but the system actually works. I hope that people will consider such an option.

    233
    I shall not take much more time from the Minister because we talked for an hour yesterday. We need to know that the proposal is for consultation—that no final decision has been taken—and that there could be flexibility with the money. We also need to be told what Cumbria county council is doing. The council is a shambles at the moment because its chief executive has left and it is weak. It has not uttered one word about sixth-form provision. Although the right hon. Gentleman was critical of the LSC, I want to know what the county council thinks of the proposals and what its alternative proposals would be. We know everybody else's proposals on a subject that is so important that the right hon. Gentleman secured an Adjournment debate on it, but all that we have heard from the county council is silence. I hope that the LSC and the county council will work together with the heads of the various schools to come up with an option that would improve opportunities for youngsters in my constituency and leave in place what is good in the area. We need to reach a point at which there is consensus on a proposal so that the Minister would see that there was little opposition to it and thus be able to rubber stamp it saying, "That's great, we've got a deal done and people are happy."
    I am conscious that the project is one of the first throughout the country although there are about 50 local learning and skills councils that are going through the exercise. It would be wrong if our LSC were seen to be totally defeated because it has pinpointed and highlighted a problem. Although I do not agree with its solution to the problem, I thank it for bringing the matter forward. I agree with some arguments made on the consultation because it has been poor in some cases. However, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman and I both want better education for all youngsters whom we represent, whether they live in urban or rural areas.
    5.8 pm
    The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education (Alan Johnson): I congratulate the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean) on securing the debate and thank him for his courtesy in advising me of the nature of his speech. I am aware of the cross-party nature of the concern because my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) came to see me about it yesterday, as he said. However, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising the matter in an Adjournment debate because it gives me a chance to discuss the Government's policy on 16-to-19 reorganisation and to address several concerns raised by him and my hon. Friend.
    It is important to say from the outset that the Government have no agenda to promote a particular type of provision for 16 to 19-year-olds. Sixth-form provision that adequately meets the needs of pupils, whether in schools, sixth-form colleges or sixth-form centres at further education colleges, is our objective and it will be paramount in our consideration of the results of the process. In many areas, 16-to-19 school, college and work-based training provision is excellent, but there is significant variation. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle explained that there are problems in Carlisle, which hon. Members would no doubt want addressed. Inspection reports show that there are
    234
    serious weaknesses in some areas of the nation and a lack of co-ordination of provision in other areas. That is why the Learning and Skills Council is in consultation with local education authorities.
    Although I cannot respond to my hon. Friend's specific point on Cumbria county council, we expect the LEA to be fully engaged in the process, as we expect students, schools, colleges and employers to be involved in a process—the strategic area reviews of post-16 arrangements—that will be undertaken in all 47 learning and skills council areas over the next two years. They are called strategic area reviews of post-16 arrangements. Carlisle is in many ways at the forefront of the process because it began a little earlier. It is right that it addresses the problem, but hon. Members should be aware that the understandable concerns expressed by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border need to be tackled because every one of us faces the prospect of such a review in our area over the next couple of years.
    So a review process is taking place. To assist that process, I set out in a departmental publication in September last year five key principles that should underpin the organisation of 16-to-19 provision. They cover the importance of high-quality provision; distinct 16-to-19 provision—the word is "distinct" not "discrete"; the diversity to ensure curriculum breadth; learner choice, an important consideration raised by the right hon. Gentleman; and value for money. Alongside statutory considerations, they will provide the benchmark against which we assess reorganisation proposals that come to the Department. I assure my hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman that no proposals have come to the Department yet, but a consultation process is under way. We have set out the five basic principles because everyone in a local area should be aware of the provisions under which we will judge proposals that are eventually submitted to us.
    Let me say a few words about each principle. First, underpinning all consideration of 16-to-19 provision should be the requirement that all provision for all learners is high quality, whatever their chosen pathway, whether it is vocational, academic or some other form. Key things to be examined include the quality of local leadership, the need for investment and the need for reconfiguration of provision, collaboration, merger or the establishment of new institutions.
    The second is distinct 16-to-19 provision to meet the particular pastoral, management and learning needs of people in that age group, wherever they learn. All young people should be attached to a 16-to-19 base, including those in work-based training when attending college. That base will have separate management arrangements with clear responsibilities for ensuring that the learning experience for all 16 to 19-year-olds is appropriate and coherent. Each young person should be assigned a tutor.
    The third principle is diversity, to ensure curriculum breadth. Although that is the third principle set out, it is no less important than the others—they are not ranked in priority order. Together, providers should support a wide curriculum offer for all 16-to-19 learners in their area. Well managed collaboration can enable popular and successful small providers, including school sixth forms, to remain viable and to share and build on their particular areas of expertise. Key features include the

    235
    sharing of individual provider specialties and allowing and encouraging 16 to 19-year-old learners to select courses offered by a range of providers.
    That brings me to the fourth, related principle, which is that the pattern of 16-to-19 provision should respect learner choice—an important feature of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. Where possible, students should have a choice of provider within reasonable travelling distance. Young people should have comprehensive, objective advice and guidance on the range of providers and options in their area, to inform their choices at age 16.
    Finally, the House will not be surprised to hear that reorganisation of 16-to-19 provision has to be affordable and cost effective. Any net costs should be commensurate with the expected improvement in learning opportunities.
    In accordance with the Learning and Skills Act 2000, the LSC has new powers that enable it to fulfil its planning responsibilities for post-16 provision. We expect the LSC to consult local stakeholders, including schools, the LEA, parents, students and employers, to ensure that local provision meets the needs of learners. Any reorganisation must have the learner at its heart.
    In Cumbria, the local LSC is currently consulting on its reorganisation proposals for the Carlisle area. Those proposals are at an early stage of the statutory process, and depending on the outcome of the consultation, a formal proposal may be submitted by the LSC for the Secretary of State's consideration. I am pleased that Cumbria LSC has allowed three months for consultation—a month longer than the statutory requirement—which is all well and good. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that it would be wrong of me to prejudice the consultation or any potential future decision by the Secretary of State by offering a view at this stage on the situation in Carlisle.
    The LSC proposals are for new sixth-form provision in Carlisle. My understanding is that the LSC proposes closing either five or seven school sixth forms, or perhaps a variant of that, as local FE provision is developed.
    David Maclean: I understand that the proposal may come to the Secretary of State for determination and that the Minister would be involved in the decision, which precludes his writing to me on the questions I posed, because doing so could prejudice his quasi-judicial position. If the Minister cannot answer the 13 questions I asked because of his position, will he use his powers to insist that the LSC, either the national body or its Cumbria office, does so?
    Alan Johnson: Yes. The right hon. Gentleman, articulating as he has questions that have been asked by parents, teachers and others in the area, should receive a response, and I shall ensure that that response comes from the appropriate body, which in respect of all his questions is, I believe, the LSC. However, if there are any questions to which my Department can respond while not prejudicing our role, we shall respond. I shall ensure that an answer is given on the specific points he raised.
    The LSC proposes closing either five or seven sixth forms, or possibly a variant of that. One of the options includes the William Howard and Caldew schools. All
    236
    seven schools were covered by the area review undertaken in 2002 and updated in 2003. I understand that Cumbria LSC wanted all seven schools in the Carlisle area to have the opportunity to be included in the consultation. In that way, the pupils, staff, governors, parents and members of the local community served by those schools have been able to express their views about the future of all seven schools and take a full part in the consultation process. That is the situation that should prevail as part of the consultation.
    I am pleased to see that the publication of the preliminary notice outlining options for change in Carlisle has generated so much local interest. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle said, we met yesterday to discuss the matter. I hope that local people continue to share their views with the local LSC so that their concerns inform the development of any proposals for the reorganisation of provision for 16 to 19-year-olds in Carlisle. The proposals by the local LSC are designed to do better for the young people of Carlisle. I hope that if those consulted do not agree with the proposals, they will make it clear how they would improve participation and attainment in Carlisle and solve some of the problems that my hon. Friend told me about yesterday.
    It is important to stress again that nothing has been decided yet. It is important to remember that the statutory process is at a very early stage. The current consultation may throw up new ideas for improving 16-to-19 education in Carlisle which will take LSC strategic planning in a new direction. I understand that the local LSC is listening closely to all the views being expressed, and it will no doubt take into account the Hansard report of this important debate.
    If, after the current consultation—my hon. Friend asked me to set out the process—the LSC decides to go ahead with the proposal that has caused the controversy mentioned this evening, it will have to publish formal proposals and there will be a further opportunity for objections and comments on those proposals. The proposals will then be considered by the Secretary of State. He will require evidence that the LSC has considered carefully the full range of options and the impact of any reorganisation proposals on local provision. Any changes must be in the best interests of present and future learners, and must follow the correct statutory process.
    Mr. Martlew: When the proposals come to the Secretary of State, is it his duty just to accept them or reject them, or can he amend them at that stage?
    Alan Johnson: The Secretary of State will take a view on the proposals. If they are rejected, it is up to the LSC to begin a process of finding another way forward. It is not a matter for the Secretary of State, from the great distance of Sanctuary house in Westminster, to make decisions on behalf of Carlisle and Cumbria. His job would be to judge the quality of the proposals.
    I can assure the House that the views of all those who have expressed objections and comments will be taken into account, should a formal proposal be submitted by the LSC. Indeed, it is the major information that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will look for in connection with any formal proposal that is made.

    237
    Let me say a word about Connexions, which is the Government's front-line support service for all young people in England aged 13 to 19. Connexions provides integrated advice, guidance and access to personal development opportunities to help remove barriers to learning and progression, and to help young people make a smooth transition to adulthood and working life. It is a new organization, and I wanted to rehearse its role. The important point about Connexions for the purposes of this debate is that we are pleased that Cumbria Connexions is undertaking a survey of young people in Carlisle in January to find out their views about the proposals. The survey will sample a representative cross-section of students in the Carlisle area. I am pleased to see that young people are being encouraged to participate in the consultation and will have the opportunity to have their say.
    I repeat that this Government recognise and value the contribution that good school sixth-form provision can make to young people's opportunities. The Government are committed to encouraging popular and successful schools to expand so that more parents can send their children to them if they wish to do so. I can assure the House that neither the Government nor the LSC have an anti-sixth forms agenda. In the context of proposals made by the LSC to reorganise sixth-form provision, should they come to the Secretary of State for decision, the impact on standards and learner choice would be the key factor that he would consider. That would include
    238
    whether the plans would affect the level of provision in the best local schools, but he would want to balance that against the potential beneficial impact on overall standards in the area.
    There can be no blueprint for the organisation of 16-to-19 provision, since the focus is the learner, not the institution, and local circumstances and quality of provision will vary, for all the reasons that the right hon. Gentleman set out. Schools and colleges must offer high-quality provision that meets the needs of all young people in their communities and employers both now and in future.
    In conclusion, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue. I hope that he is reassured, or can eventually be reassured, that 16-to-19 reorganisation proposals for Carlisle have the learner and the needs of the whole community at their heart. As with other areas, any proposals being considered for Carlisle will need to be underpinned by the five key principles that I mentioned—the importance of high quality, distinct 16-to-19 provision, diversity to ensure curriculum breadth, learner choice and value for money. I also hope that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle are reassured that the consultation process provides the opportunity for them and their constituents to be fully involved in ensuring that those principles are met in the current very important reviews.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Five o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR NICHOLAS WINTERTON in the Chair]

Pre-legislative Scrutiny
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Heppell.]
Sir Nicholas Winterton: Before I call the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who initiated the first debate, I hope that all Members had a restful and enjoyable, albeit rather short, Christmas break. I also wish all Members a very happy and successful new year.
9.30 am
Mr. Graham Allen: Thank you for calling me to speak in this very important debate, Sir Nicholas. If there is one thing that should unite politicians of all parties in this House, it is a desire to ensure that Parliament is more effective and that it becomes more relevant and a more important forum. I hope that those of us gathered here this morning will agree on how we might proceed and that the Minister will take our views seriously.
Politicians of all parties are struggling to reignite people's interest in our democracy. It is sad that many members of the public rightly or wrongly perceive us to be out of touch, out of date and unresponsive to outside opinion. They do not understand or even care about what they believe to be our archaic and irrelevant procedures and practices. The media does little to help and much to hinder. Civil servants and Ministers, through fear of challenge or lack of imagination, may feel little need to relax their grip over a supplicant Parliament. Blaming others, however, gets us nowhere. Parliament must take responsibility for itself, and I hope that the Government, who control our agenda, will assist it. This Government, like all Governments, need constantly to renew their connection with Parliament and the public.
The answer is under our noses in the form of online pre-legislative scrutiny—an ugly mouthful, but one that means taking our democracy to its next level and to its next era, in which Committees properly examine draft Bills or, even better, White Papers, or, better still, the Minister's instructions to counsel—the ideas behind the Bill. That would give Bills the examination that they deserve in advance of their becoming law.
There is a tendency for Parliament to fear technological developments. For many years, the broadcasting of proceedings, first on radio and then on television, was resisted. Some believe that the internet now threatens the principle of representative government, since it offers the possibility of direct decision taking through e-plebiscite—a big, if monosyllabic, conversation that would bypass Westminster altogether. We are right to be worried about being bypassed, but pre-legislative scrutiny turns that worry on its head. It can reinforce representative democracy rather than undermine it. It would mean the
2WH
public's thoughtful involvement in our law making rather than a crude "yes or no" totting-up of views on a particular issue without proper explanation or involvement. It would give this generation of democrats the chance to develop a fully participative democracy rather than revelling in the irrelevant past, as some of us do in this place. Through this process, Parliament could once again become a respected forum of the nation.
If evidence on proposed Bills was broadcast live on the parliamentary and BBC websites, for example, every voter who could get near a computer would be able to view proceedings and could submit their own views using the e-mail address that would run across the bottom of the screen. Those views would be received and processed, not by anyone here or in party politics, but by an independent mediator—perhaps, as in the brilliant example of the Communications Act 2003, the Hansard Society. a much respected and independent institution.
Brian White: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Allen: I am glad to give way to my hon. Friend, because he was a distinguished member of the Committee that considered the Communications Bill, which successfully pioneered the experiment in online pre-legislative scrutiny last year.
Brian White: Is my hon. Friend aware that one group was unable to participate in that online scrutiny of the Communications Bill? The whole world could watch it, except the 659 MPs in this place, who were barred from watching it on the parliamentary data and video network.
Mr. Allen: It is ironic that while a peasant farmer who had access to a satellite dish in China could e-mail responses on the Communications Bill last year, a Member of Parliament who wished to do the same would have had to leave this place—the mother of Parliaments—and go outside, perhaps to their home, to tune in and exercise a similar right. However, my hon. Friend and I have been working closely with the Select Committee on Information to try to put that right. Indeed, I believe it may now even be possible, for the first time, for Members of Parliament to participate in making laws even though they are not sat in Committee, which is great progress.
The role of the independent mediator, a role taken by the Hansard Society for the Communications Bill, would be to look at the e-mail traffic, distil the gems and nuggets on a side of paper and put that in front of the Committee the next day. One of the beauties of the idea for Members who are technophobes—I probably count myself among their number—is that those conducting the evidence taking and those giving the evidence are not in direct interface with the technology. The Committee proceeds exactly as before; the only difference is that it receives a sheet of paper with some bright ideas, from whoever it may, about the evidence given the day before or on the Bill's clauses.
The great thing about the idea is that electors with practical experience in an area can feed the Committee useful advice as it develops its scrutiny of a Bill. Imagine,

3WH
for example, if serving police officers, housing officers or victims of antisocial behaviour had been able not only to listen to the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary giving evidence on the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, but to improve the various concepts and ideas through their practical experience of the nuts and bolts of how things might work best for them. The Government may say that they already have their version of pre-legislative scrutiny and that they consult with people. That is true; but Parliament too should have the right to do that, as it is our responsibility to ensure that legislation is in good shape. For example, on the Anti-social Behaviour Act, although the Government might rightly have taken advice from the Association of Chief Police Officers on antisocial behaviour, a serving police officer in Macclesfield, Nottingham or Milton Keynes would have been able to say. "On-the-spot fines are a super idea, but if only you did it just like this, it would help us on the ground so much more."
The more voices that are allowed to be heard, the more likely we are to get the ideas to make good legislation even better. Many of the legislative disasters that Governments have imposed on Parliament—I speak generically—could probably have been avoided. To refer to my own experience, I led for my party in opposition on the Child Support Act 1991, which has had to be rewritten about five times. I have no doubt that had we had a sensible process of pre-legislative scrutiny—either online or offline—and had we listened to the practitioners and to those whom it affected, we would have been able to make that law far better, far earlier.
We have all, as constituency Members, heard voices, not as timely advice from those with experience, but as screams of anguish and despair from the most obvious victims of Government mistreatment of the parliamentary process. Not one Member of the House has not had experience of child support cases that we know would have been handled better had the law been framed properly in the first instance. We all share the blame for not getting the process right. That is not merely a dry parliamentary point; if we get things wrong—in this instance, the Child Support Agency—people die, people commit suicide, and misery is inflicted on people for many years. To take an extra few weeks to listen to the voices and get it right is a very small price to pay.
We are now in Second Reading season. Who knows how many of the Bills before the House this week and in coming weeks will have to be revisited next year or the year after? I have heard my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary say that people cannot wait to get a Bill on the statute book and that they need the relief and the remedy now. However, by hurrying Bills through without proper legislative consultation we slow, not speed, the process. Time and time again we come back to put things right that we did not get right because we acted in haste and without allowing Parliament to do the job that it is elected to do.
Proper parliamentary planning of evidence on Bills could create a schedule—a sort of parliamentary Radio Times—if we got our act together and listed which Bills were coming forward and when evidence could be given.
4WH
That would allow a tremendous opportunity for access. Interest groups could plan their viewing—so to speak—and their input into law months ahead, where legislation affected them. For example, to stick with the issue of child support, if we were to produce a new child support Act, battered wives or "children need fathers" groups could know in advance when particular evidence was going to be given on particular parts of the Bill and could make provision to meet at their community centre, around the communal personal computer, with their social worker or community worker. They could view the evidence, have a sensible discussion and then make a contribution.
In the past, we might have said something that sounded like a great idea—for example. that we must put the man back into a relationship, even a financial relationship with the woman. However, battered wives might say that that is absolutely the last thing that they want and that if we want to help them we should operate in one way rather than the other. They might agree with our sentiment, but ask us to work in a practical and helpful way. The intelligence, experience and advice in our communities could help make our good intentions real and practical.
Pre-legislative scrutiny has received endorsement from the Government, most notably in the 2002 Gracious Speech. Thanks to the introduction of carry-over Bills and timetabling with a period of pre-legislative scrutiny built in, that is now theoretically far easier than ever before. If we are to believe newspaper reports in what we are told is a post-spin age, there are plans to abolish the monarch's annual address on the opening of Parliament. If that happened, a desire to avoid pre-empting the Queen's Speech would cease to be a valid excuse—if ever it were one—for not alerting Parliament, Select Committee Chairs and others about future Bills and allowing each departmental Committee to plan its pre-legislative programme further in advance. What is my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons doing now to plan next October's parliamentary Session? Is he engaging with the Chairs of Select Committees on the long list of potential Bills that is circulating in Whitehall? It is important to plan ahead, so that the procedure can be built in.
The trend is for more draft Bills to be published in each parliamentary Session, and it is important that all of us, whichever party we come from, put on the record our gratitude for the fact that the Government, in co-operation with the Opposition, are putting more Bills through the process. That is a welcome development, and I congratulate not only the Minister but my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of Commons and his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), on the progress that has been made. Now we need to take a major step forward. The process needs extra impetus and political leadership if it is to progress. I hope that the Minister will be forthcoming on that issue. Robert Blackburn, the author, has rightly stated:
"Further development depends more on Government than on Parliament."
The Government control our agenda on a minute-to-minute basis, so the ability of the Cabinet and the business managers to decide in advance the legislative programme and of Departments to give drafting instructions, particularly given the limited resources of

5WH
parliamentary counsel, are vital to the control of Government. It is not good enough for Government to say, "This is a matter for Parliament." Parliament cannot move without Government being supportive and promoting and encouraging further developments.
The process should not live or die according to who is Leader or Deputy Leader of the House. One of the most helpful contributions that the Minister could make this year would be to settle on one form of pre-legislative scrutiny. Early on, we welcomed lots of different forms; that was important at that stage. Perhaps we should not close off options, as an alternative form might be helpful in some circumstances. However, to assist the civil service, Select Committee Chairs and Members of this House, it is important to pull the strands together and to institutionalise the form in which pre-legislative scrutiny online takes place. There are too many excuses around for those who do not want the process to be a success to allow them myriad possible pitfalls.
It is important to identify the most commonly used and most favoured form of pre-legislative scrutiny, and I hope that the Minister will consider putting it in Standing Orders, so that it can be applied as a matter of course to all future Bills—not the odd one that we think might go well through the process—in order for there to be a feeling that that is standard practice. On occasion, it would not be necessary, but the common practice would be to follow the procedure specified in the Standing Orders. We should simplify and institutionalise the process.
Mr. Oliver Heald: If all legislative scrutiny has to be done by Select Committees, might they not become overburdened? There is a case for Joint Committees that can bring a lot of expertise to a particular measure, as they did in the cases of the Communications Bill, the Finance Services and Markets Bill and other legislation. Would there not be a problem if we were restricted to one method of pre-legislative scrutiny? When the Modernisation Committee considered the matter, it commented that it would not be right to be too rigid.
Mr. Allen: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his interest and support—it is important that this should remain a cross-party and pro-Parliament issue. He makes a good point; something can be lost if we focus on a single, mainstream type of pre-legislative scrutiny. However, we are at the point at which we need to plump for something that might be regarded as the standard process, albeit one that does not preclude us from acting in a slightly different way in particular circumstances. We are trying to change from thinking that anything goes to introducing something that will ensure that the new concept survives and flourishes.
We have seen that the appointment of a new Leader of the House with a different approach can kill that concept. However, if it is institutionalised, so that it is clear how the civil service, hon. Members and Ministers should operate—allowing for some flexibility—we will be able to maintain and grow the concept of pre-legislative scrutiny online. If I were to plump for a favourite, I would go for a process involving a Special Standing Committee that would be created after First Reading, which would be the announcement of just the
6WH
long title of the Bill. The process would last for eight weeks and would he based on a full ministerial brief on what the Bill is intended to achieve, not on the Bill or Green Paper. The Bill would not be published until Second Reading. Instead of hon. Members being sucked into the detail of the arcane language found in Bills, there would be a more open evidence-giving session about the general ideas and intentions of Ministers and the Government. That is my view, but what is important is not that that view wins, but that the Government, if they are taking this process seriously, start to coalesce policy over the next 12 months or so around a preferred way of scrutinising Bills in this House.
The advantages of such an approach are numerous. It would involve Parliament either in the drafting of legislation or the reality checking of concepts behind it, and it would mean that problems could be corrected before they became part of an entrenched political position after Second Reading on the Floor and the farcical process of Standing Committee, which wastes so much ministerial time, let alone parliamentary time. The end result would be better law.
There would also be political benefits—regardless of party. Recently, there has been a progressive proposal for the introduction of back-loaded university tuition fees, which has been severely criticised on both sides of the House. Why? It is not because of the substance of the policy, which many people adhere to when it is properly explained, but because of the manner in which it has been dropped fully formed on to Parliament out of nowhere—nowhere being No. 10 Downing street in this instance.
If hon. Members will permit me a flight of fantasy, I ask them to imagine that at some point after the last general election, when the Government realised that their manifesto commitment not to introduce top-up fees was becoming untenable, they came to Parliament and said, "We made this manifesto commitment in complete good faith, but now, in equally good faith, we cannot be bound by it when faced with the financial collapse of our world-class university system. We are putting to you—Parliament—a proposal for variable tuition fees, and we would like you to take the time to work through it, find the snags and suggest the improvements."Several parliamentary Committees could have begun scrutinising that idea from different angles. The proceedings and evidence taking, broadcast over the internet, would have allowed students, prospective students, parents, teachers, the National Union of Students and other interested parties to register and submit their comments.
Even with the half-baked process that we have, there have been a lot of improvements in the past few weeks. In a proper process, the package would have been tightened and improved along the way with, for example, larger maintenance grants for poorer students or less subsidisation of tuition fees, so my proposal would be cost free. If the matter had been handled in that way, the different groups participating, including the Government, would have mutually educated themselves about the policy and bought into an agreed package that they had all helped to produce; we certainly would not be engaged in the brinksmanship and last-minute crisis management that we are now involved in.

7WH
Full online pre-legislative scrutiny might yet offer a sensible way forward for a new and positive relationship between all Governments and Parliaments, regardless of parties. It would also send a clear signal to Members of Parliament that Prime Ministers of all political colours would be willing to listen to them and take their ideas on board, as well as those ideas from the public that hold water. Above all, we in the House, with our new partners, the public, would he able to make better law—law proposed by another new partner, the Government.
Mr. Heald: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and hope that I am not trespassing on his good will. Although I am very supportive of the initiative that he proposes, one of my concerns is that the process of online pre-legislative scrutiny could be subject to volume lobbying, such as the sort of postcards that we all receive in vast numbers, which could be sent in their thousands with the same representation being made at the same time and in a co-ordinated way. What is the hon. Gentleman's view of that? Should we treat it as legitimate lobbying, or would it need to be tackled in some way to make the process more effective?
Mr. Allen: Again, that is a sensible and helpful point. Indeed, we went into that in our debates on the Communications Act 2003. We need to consider the role of the mediator. The Hansard Society said about that Act that it did not receive a single e-mail in response to evidence that had to be "taken down". In other words, it received nothing that was racially abusive or insulting, which shows that such participation was sensible on that occasion.
Equally, were there to be a campaign, the number of identical or similar responses would be noted by the mediator, and that would go before the relevant Committee. I think that it could be left to the Committee or the Secretary of State to decide whether such responses were a good idea or whether someone was trying to lobby. I think that lobbying would be counterproductive. Indeed, as we found with the Communications Act, on which many people were well equipped to organise that sort of mass lobby, they instead decided to make practical and sensible contributions to the debate, and they were respected for it. Were they to have organised a mass e-mail flaming of Committee members, we would have taken a very dim view and disregarded what they had to say. However, that would be for the judgment of the relevant Committee.
Mr. Richard Allan: To assist the hon. Gentleman on that point, another example of online consultation was that carried out on stem cell research by the House of Lord Select Committee. One would have expected that consultation to be subject to much lobbying, as the pro-life lobbies are very effective at putting their case, but it did not happen. It is my understanding that, unlike the open e-mail system, it is inherent in the online consultation system that such lobbying can be prevented. People have to register and go through various stages in order to access the system to express their views, which discourages everyone except those who have something serious to say. It is
8WH
quite different from an open e-mail address where there will be a huge number of responses—the equivalent of thousands of postcards.
Mr. Allen: My honourable colleague makes a sensible point. Indeed, if we take the process seriously, people will come to realise that they can influence the process.
I conducted my own pre-legislative scrutiny online when on the Committee that considered the Criminal Justice Act 2003. A network of people helped me—local police officers, lawyers, housing officials and so on. I e-mailed them clauses of the Bill—I said that the provisions were not negotiable—and asked whether practicalities of the clause worked for them. Because of the responses to those questions, I was sometimes able to table amendments—rather to the annoyance of my Whip. None the less, changes were made on a number of occasions.
One such change was on drug testing; it was inspired by a local inspector of police, supported by his assistant chief constable. We made an impact on the drug testing of young people using class A drugs—heroin, crack or cocaine—at the age of 14. The Minister was keen to seize on that. The Home Secretary originally intended the sentencing guidelines council to be a wholly judicial body. Because I was able to take views from outside, as well as across parties, we gained a broadening of the sentencing guidelines council to include not just the judiciary but a serving prison governor and a serving police officer. That was a practical move, and once we had got over the culture shock, the Minister on the Committee took on board a number of the bright ideas that came, if not from me, through me because of that process. Imagine if we had opened that out to everyone else. Instead of coming back in 18 months with a new Criminal Justice Bill to close some of the loopholes, as we will, we could have got matters right first time.
If the process works, and that is proved to people, they are less likely to be abusive. All parliamentary colleagues have been in situations where someone in the street has started off by being quite aggressive but, once we have sat them down and talked through what has happened in a particular case, they have then understood, even if they have not been convinced, and have perhaps entered into more serious dialogue with us. If we institutionalise online pre-legislative scrutiny, people's mindset, as on the Communications Bill, will be to say, "Thank you for letting me participate in the making of better law that will affect me in my field or interest."
Online scrutiny is a good means of bringing public and Parliament closer together, an admirable objective in itself. It would display our democratic process at its best, rather than leaving people thinking that that is irrelevant and that we are all a bunch of sheep, yah-booing at Prime Minister's Question Time. The perception could change so that people say of us, "These are people who are serious about making the laws that affect me and my family." We would develop the genuine participation of people in our democracy.
This is also a matter of widening access and communication. I mentioned earlier that the media have done little to help Parliament. I think that they enjoy the dance between themselves and the Executive at No. 10 Downing street, the only two serious players in British

9WH
politics at the moment. We can broaden that, restoring a role to Parliament and to our people and letting everyone else come to the party.
Whingeing is pointless, so I shall focus on the BBC, of which I am an ardent supporter. I hope very much that it will help to facilitate licence payers' access to their democracy by hosting and branding online pre-legislative scrutiny of this place on its popular and respected website. No editorial would be necessary or welcome, and costs would be minimal because the technology is pretty much in place throughout the House already, but maximum exposure could be generated through trailers on the corporation's radio and television channels, inviting people to become involved in their democracy. Instead of complaining in an "Any Questions" format, people could get involved in the reality of changing the law the very next day by participating in the democratic process.
The BBC, which has itself been subject to unfair attacks from various quarters in recent years, could then rebut many of its critics and build on its already excellent public service role. It could re-centre itself as an integral element of our democracy, not some marginalised commentator, and make itself fulfil abundantly the public service obligation in its charter by facilitating the public's working closely with their elected representatives to make better laws for everyone. That would be a prize indeed for the BBC, as well as for us in Parliament and for the public.
A massive leap forward for our democracy is now on offer, which would restore a useful function for our Parliament, provide a 21st-century role for the BBC and open the door to participation for all our people. This is the last great extension of the franchise for a mature democracy, and it lies in the Minister's hands to seize that opportunity. I hope that he has the courage to do so. I know him personally, and I know that that is well within his capabilities. During the next year, we will watch him closely. I wish him well in the difficult times that lie ahead, and hope that he draws strength from the fact that to rebuild and strengthen our Parliament as an effective partner of the Executive is not just the right thing to do. I hope that he realises that he will carry the House with him on this matter, regardless of Members' political stances on various issues. Parliament, and Members of all parties in Parliament, will wish him well in making this serious contribution to the next step in our democracy.
10.5 am
Brian White: I am the chair of the all-party e-democracy group, having taken over from my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran), who did a good job of establishing the group. She was keen on the kind of online discussion that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) talked about, and pioneered a consultation in relation to battered women, which led to a large number of subsequent consultations.
I will start, rather perversely, by pointing out that post-legislative scrutiny is not carried out very well. There is a role for an online forum and a need for all aspects of post-legislative scrutiny in the House to be thoroughly updated. Select Committees tend to be
10WH
influenced by the whims of their members, and they consider what those members feel like considering, rather than focusing on the way in which legislation went through the House and was implemented. There is no real post-legislative scrutiny review.
Mr. Graham Allen: There would be no need for pre-legislative scrutiny if we had proper legislative scrutiny. We have to invent a way around the inadequacies of the House, as we are not honest about those inadequacies.
Brian White: My hon. Friend makes the very point that I was going to make. The House divides scrutiny into pre-legislative and post-legislative stages, but the process is ongoing. Any post-legislative scrutiny should inform future legislation. A couple of years ago, the Public Administration Committee produced a report on innovations in consultation. One of the key things to come out of that was the fact that people wanted to know how their views influenced the system. They were not particularly interested in whether their views were accepted, but they wanted to see how the system responded to external inputs. The consultations in which that process was transparent were successful, but those in which it was opaque were the ones that people found frustrating. There are therefore serious issues relating to the way in which we conduct our scrutiny.
I have served on two pre-legislative scrutiny Committees—a Select Committee and the Joint Committee considering the Communications Bill. My experience of the Joint Committee was better than my experience of the Select Committee. One of the problems with the Select Committee was that, although we were considering the Freedom of Information Bill, the time and effort that went into pre-legislative scrutiny meant that the rest of the Committee's work did not receive proper consideration. I prefer the scrutiny powers of Joint Committees, and I would not want Select Committees to have the ability to produce draft legislation. It is important to get a balance, and so I disagree with my hon. Friend about having an institutionalised way forward.
When talking about online input, we ought to consider pre-pre-legislative scrutiny—in other words, what the civil service does in discussions with Ministers. The Communications Bill is a good example. The team for that Bill was set up and there was consultation with the industry. Parliamentarians were also involved, through the European information society group, which I chair. The process brought parliamentarians and the industry together. The Bill team went out and made use of the consultation—ironically, the team used online consultation as well—and that ensured that when pre-legislative scrutiny took place there was a much better understanding of the issues. The Bill team was more responsive, and, when it participated in the pre-legislative scrutiny, it was prepared to take part in the debate. However, when the team working on the Freedom of Information Bill took part in pre-legislative scrutiny, it took a step back from the Committee process, which raises some interesting issues.
It is often said that, if only we had pre-legislative scrutiny, we could avoid all disagreements. However, that is not a good idea, as it is important that there should be disagreement. Pre-legislative scrutiny can eliminate certain debates if the Bill is simply wrong. It is

11WH
reckoned that some 400 amendments to the Communications Bill were avoided as a result of getting the minutiae right, but pre-legislative scrutiny did not resolve disagreement. There were debates about different options, and it was down to the Minister involved to choose the preferred one. The other options were still valid, but the Minister had to make a choice, and everyone knew that.
Similarly, some issues simply involved a choice of A or B, particularly between BSkyB and the public broadcasters. Either A or B would lose out but, whatever the decision, there was a fight in Committee. Pre-legislative scrutiny should not be used to avoid debate and disagreement.
Mr. Richard Allan: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman's experience has been similar to mine. The debate on the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999—another legislative issue that regularly returns to the House—was better informed as a result of pre-legislative scrutiny. Such scrutiny does not eliminate debate, but Members who are considering the legislation will have had a much greater exposure to a range of views in a standard format. In such cases, the Special Standing Committee works better than a regular Standing Committee.
Brian White: I agree. Pre-legislative scrutiny enables us to focus on issues that we would not necessarily have considered initially. That was certainly true for the Communications Bill. The debates were not those one might have expected at the start of the process, but they were just as fierce, particularly in the House of Lords. An online forum for pre-legislative scrutiny would therefore not diminish debate but enhance it.
If we are to have online scrutiny, the quality of the language that is used in explanatory notes, briefings about the Bill and regulatory impact assessments must be improved. Such documents are written for us—they are not written in the language used in the street. If we are to have an online forum, it is important that we either provide a separate version of documents online or, preferably, improve the quality of the documents to ensure that there is better pre-legislative scrutiny.
Mr. Graham Allen: Once again, I return to the question of helping the civil service and Ministers, who work incredibly hard when a Bill is introduced. If we asked for 15 different ways of presenting Bills, draft Bills, Green Papers, instructions to counsel and so on, we would burden them even more at a critical time. They should carry responsibilities, but requirements should be clear and straightforward so that they all know what they have to do. If we confuse the issue, many Departments will continue to offer resistance. We must therefore convince Departments and Ministers that the proposal would be good for them and that the debates to which my hon. Friend referred are the ones that should be held, rather than ridiculous debates about adding words such as "a", "it" or "and", which waste our time.
Brian White: My hon. Friend makes my point in a much better way than I could. He raised the issue of
12WH
online consultations and the registering process, and a key consideration in such a registering process is who we are excluding. It is easy to include the usual suspects, or a new set of usual suspects, but, if we do not get it right, we are in danger of excluding a different set of people from the process. We need to be careful when setting up the process and consider who should mediate it, what they are mediating and what the input should be. During consideration of the Communications Bill, the online scrutiny changed the nature of our questioning, particularly when questioning someone like the chairman of BT. We would not have thought of some of the questions that we put to the BBC had they not emerged through that process, and it is important that we accept such contributions. However, online scrutiny should not prevent other alternatives from being used. There is a danger that it may become the only method because it is brand new. It is not the only method—it is an additional route, rather than one that has shiny bells on it.
Mr. Heald: If we restrict consultation too much, we could fail to take note of a strongly held view that the public at large wish to express in a forceful way. An example is the recent "Today" poll on which Bills should be introduced. There was huge support for a Bill to deal with an issue arising from the Martin case. It was not introduced in a technical way by expert lawyers but, importantly, it has touched a raw nerve with the public. We would not want not to know what people thought about such issues. Is that the hon. Gentleman's point?
Brian White: That is exactly the point. In this debate, we are in danger of forgetting that we are politicians, we belong to political parties and we have a representative democracy. We have a duty to make judgments, and the online process is not a substitute for such judgment making. In the Martin case, we need to judge the arguments for and against, rather than simply acknowledge the fact that a large body of people have made a point. It is a matter of interpretation, and we need to consider the underlying issues. The online process is an important tool, but it is not a substitute for doing our job—it helps us to do our job. It is helpful to know that there is a strong body of opinion about the issues raised by certain cases. It may be appropriate for a Select Committee to consider such issues, but that is a judgment we need to make in Parliament. The tool of online scrutiny should assist us in making such judgments, rather than substitute for them.
We do not make good use of all-party groups. The use of all-party groups in online consultation is important, as is support and training for Members—an issue which my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North did not touch on. I should like to see the introduction of online questions for Ministers. The opportunity for Ministers to respond regularly online, as they do in Parliament, would be a useful innovation. They would not necessarily answer questions online as frequently as they do in Parliament, but there is a role for such questioning.
Such scrutiny is not just a tool for the Government. Many local councils are way ahead of us in their use of online consultation and scrutiny. We are considering draft Bills and the introduction of legislation, but we should remember that it is not just the Government who

13WH
introduce draft legislation. The Public Administration Committee yesterday proposed a draft civil service Bill. Ironically, I was the only Committee member to oppose that Bill, but the fact that the Committee proposed such a Bill is a useful way of moving the debate forward.
There are also lessons to be learned from other countries, and I refer Members to early-day motion 322. Recently, in Canada, a decision was made to open up the way in which parliamentarians interact with the Government, for example in free votes and online forums. In this country, we are starting to deal with those issues, which were pioneered in Canada. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider its experience to see whether anything from its Westminster-type Parliament is relevant to our democracy. I welcome our debate, and several useful things have come out of it. It is important that we consider the online scrutiny as part of an ongoing process rather than as a substitute for the reason why we are here, which is to represent our constituents.
10.20 am
Mr. Richard Allan: I am extremely pleased that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) has secured this debate early in the new year because, although it is a subject of importance to many Members, it has been underrepresented in Parliament. There was a flurry of excitement a couple of years ago when the Government published a consultation paper on ways in which we could use the tools of the internet for conducting our democratic business, but in official terms it has gone very quiet since then.
Like the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White), I am associated with the all-party e-democracy group, and serve as its secretary. Many of us who are interested in e-democracy—a wonderful phrase, but one should be suspicious of anything beginning with an e—are in fact far more interested in democracy than in the "e". I have an interest in the technology but it is democracy that drives us; the technology is a means to a better democratic end.
I will focus on some of the democratic problems and the way in which the online consultation that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North discussed could help to resolve them. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East helpfully reminded us that there is a legislative cycle and that pre-legislative scrutiny is part of a larger whole. That reminds me of the way in which IT systems are designed according to a life cycle. One designs, builds, tests and implements them, then reviews them before redesigning, rebuilding and retesting them. One never stops, and legislation should be dealt with in the same way. We should consider online consultation at the design phase, but that does not mean that we do not want further interaction when the legislation is implemented.
A lot of work is taking place into the reasons why people are disconnected from politics, some of which is funded by the Government and bodies such as the Economic and Social Research Council. The reality of that disconnection is there for all to see—we often discuss it, and today we are focussing on a tool that may remove it. Stephen Coleman, Professor of e-Democracy at the Oxford Internet Institute, has done some
14WH
interesting work on the way in which people identify what he calls the disconnected representative, meaning us, and discusses their lack of connection with that representative. He defines that figure with certain adjectives which, when added together, should make us slightly humble—there is the unknown representative, the invisible representative, the distant representative, the alien representative, the partisan representative, the untrustworthy representative, the arrogant representative and the irrelevant representative.
Brian White: Which one is the hon. Gentleman'?
Mr. Allan: We can all pick a collection of those adjectives. All were the result of thoughtful research among a large panel of people who defined those characteristics. Some of the features of the alien representative are particularly relevant to our debate, and I shall give some quotations that show how people feel about us:
"They are disconnected from the real world."
"He is too remote and not on the same wavelength as the people generally."
I like this one:
"I don't think they are on the same planet. They have no idea about normal life."
The fact that, for many of those people, we have no idea about normal life means that we are not in the same places as them. The internet is one place that they increasingly visit—it is where they chat and conduct business. If we want to become less alien, it is important that we catch up with and address the modern age. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North referred to television debates. If we had not decided to televise Parliament, how alien we would seem to a culture in which watching television is a prime leisure activity. We should be aware that things are happening on the internet—we cannot ignore it or expect it to go away.
Great developments have taken place without Parliament's permission—that may be why they have been so successful. Only three Members refuse to accept faxes from faxyourmp.com, a website that was set up when people said, "We want to e-mail our MPs and will find a way of doing it. We will not ask permission; we will just get on and do it." It has been hugely successful. Publicwhip.org.uk is another relevant website. It has nothing to do with sadomasochism, but is entirely political and wholesome. Members do not need to type "whip" into a search engine. They should go straight to publicwhip.org.uk, where someone has examined MPs' voting records and compared the way in which we voted on various issues. The site has some wonderful maps and was set up, without our permission, to make MPs publicly accountable. The BBC is also in on the act with the interesting iCan project, which includes a wonderful section giving helpful advice on organising a demonstration. It suggests that AGMs are good places at which to raise political matters, and says that people should get together and use the internet to make their point.
Democracy is happening on the internet—the question is whether we want to engage with it proactively or have it bite us on the backside. The Information Committee produced a report in 2001 that tried to help Parliament engage positively with that

15WH
agenda. It defined five principles, which are still relevant. We should use the internet to assist with accessibility, effectiveness, participation and accountability, and we should share best practice. The participation principle is particularly relevant. The Committee stated:
"The House is committed to the use of ICT to increase public participation in its work, enabling it to draw on the widest possible pool of experience, including particularly those who have traditionally been excluded from the political and parliamentary process."
It said that it is particularly important to include people
"who have traditionally been excluded".
That leads me to a matter that must be discussed in our debate—the digital divide. Answers to that problem are emerging, including a clearer definition of the divide and whether online consultation will include or exclude people. The extent of exclusion has been vastly overstated. The Oxford internet survey in 2003 helped to define more clearly who is using the internet. It said that 59 per cent. of people are users and 9 per cent. are proxy users who use the internet via someone else. A large group—25 per cent.—do not want to use the internet, and only 7 per cent. are actively excluded because, even though they may want to use the internet, they are unable to do so. Use of the internet is therefore extensive.
Turning to social classes and age groups, the younger age groups are interested in engaging in politics because most of our decisions will affect them more than anyone else. The penetration rate among social classes A, B and C1 is 100 per cent. The fact that 100 per cent. define themselves as internet users may appear to be a Saddam Hussein-type referendum or election result but, although it is an exceptional figure, it is probably true. Among those in social group DE, there is 80 per cent. penetration. That is not brilliant, but compares favourably with the functional access of that group to library and other information services, which is poor.
The fact that many people are using the internet shows that the digital divide in society is largely resolving itself, which gives us interesting opportunities to engage people who traditionally have had no access to politics. Many people who use the internet would not have gone to their local library to reserve a copy of Hansard, which would arrive at a later date. Even if they had a copy, they would not be able to work out what was going on. It is pretty unintelligible to me, never mind anyone else. I still cannot understand Order Papers, which completely confuse me.
Mr. Graham Allen: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we need to find a way to break that cycle? It is incumbent on the House to change its culture and allow people e-mail access. If we do so, people will take politics seriously and participate more. Does he also accept the importance of introducing a schedule? If we included evidence taking in such a schedule, and if members of a particular community such as a group of war widows or claimants for disability living allowance knew that that opportunity existed, even if they did not have a PC, they would be aware that information relevant to them could be viewed at a known time. We would therefore reinforce their confidence, and their
16WH
own confidence in the process would be reinforced because we would demonstrate that we are taking it seriously.
Mr. Allan: That was very helpful. The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct. If we manage the process correctly, the possibilities are enormous. In Adjournment debates at the end of the day, there are often only two men and a dog in the Chamber—that is, if the Home Secretary is responding. Otherwise, there are only two people in the Chamber talking to each other. We should think about the number of people who access that debate at 11 pm, or at 7.30 pm or 8 pm under the new hours, then consider the possibilities that technology offers us. Adjournment debates are often about subjects that are of significant interest to small communities. We could involve all those people in a debate via the internet, and 50 or 60 people could sit round a computer, watch the debate, discuss it and provide feedback. That demonstrates the potential of the internet and its relevance to the scrutiny of legislation. Adjournment debates are an example of debates that are not well covered by the media at the moment. If legislative scrutiny is included in the timetable, and if people think of the internet as something that they use not only on their own but in groups, the possibilities that it affords become very exciting.
Mr. Graham Allen: Legislation applies a discipline to the e-mailer. Rather than expressing a general view about what was said in an Adjournment debate and succumbing to the verbal diarrhoea that we all receive in e-mails, legislation limits the e-mailer to a particular line, clause or idea, and they must express their views in a practical way. For example, they might say, "We think that you have a good idea, but doing it like this would help you to achieve what you are trying to achieve in law." That disciplined framework is the difference between examining legislation and holding the sort of general debate that we can all have in chat rooms if we do not have better things to do with our lives.
Mr. Allan: That is helpful, and brings me back to whether using the internet in such consultations merely becomes a game of mass spamming. The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct about the need for a framework.
The hon. Gentleman made a point about whether we should have a set model for consultation. I should like more experimentation, but he is right that there should be a call-off contract that is easily available and can be pulled off the shelf. People would have no excuses about not proceeding because they do not know what to do as the process is too difficult. That should not, however, prevent people from continuing to experiment. I am a fan of the excellent Joint Committee model. A Joint Committee's call-off contract asking for online consultation is entirely straightforward. The Clerk says, "Let's have it," and the consultation proceeds.
Many different consultations have been held. We have had consultations on the Data Protection (Amendment) Bill, domestic violence, family tax credits, stem cell research, floods, the parliamentary information strategy, long-term care of the elderly, and the draft Communications Bill. The Public

17WH
Administration Committee held a new democracy consultation. Many different parliamentary bodies have held consultations, and it would be helpful to pull that experience together and produce models that anyone can apply. Mediation is the key, allowing information to be available to Members who do not want to engage in the process. It is important that Committees mediate information for people engaged in the consultation so that they can receive feedback. Two-way communication should take place through an intermediary if members of the Committee do not choose to engage in the process. It would be better if they could engage, and I hope that more of them will want to do so among the next generation of MPs.
Deliberation is also important, and is an important difference between online consultation and online polling, which is insufficient for our needs. Online polling helps us to know what people are talking about, but once we have identified that, we need to start exploring the consequence of any change in the law. The Tony Martin case is a good example. We know that people are interested in it, but what is helpful is deliberation on its implications. We must ask ourselves under what circumstances it is all right to shoot someone who has entered one's house. Is it all right to shoot someone if we simply see them in our back garden? We then start to explore the issues in greater detail, which we do not do in online polling. Deliberation is therefore a key part of a good online consultation. Whenever someone posts a message saying that we should shoot anyone who walks anywhere near our property, someone will respond by asking if it would be all right to shoot someone who accidentally walked through another person's front door because they thought it was their house. People will deliberate in an effective consultation.
Finally, as the hon. Gentleman said, this development is in the same tradition as widening the franchise. The franchise was progressively widened over time, but we have not significantly widened access to policy making. Policy making is still largely confined to interest groups that are sufficiently powerful and geographically close to London to be represented in Parliament. Those who have access to Select Committees and can influence policy making comprise a very small number of people in our democracy in 2003. That position has not changed dramatically over the years. We can now use the key features of the internet, which is non-geographical and has a low cost of entry, to allow access to policy making to millions of people who live in areas geographically remote from London and who traditionally have been excluded from expensive methods of accessing policy making. That will change the nature of our role and impose additional burdens on us, but it is worth adopting those burdens to demonstrate that our democracy has developed.
Politics is essentially a communications business. It is important that we recognise that and respond to public demand. I will close with a quotation from the psychologist, J. C. R. Licklider, who was influential in the formation of the internet, which was established not just by techies but by people with a wider vision. In the 1960s he wrote about the future, and said:
"The political process would essentially be a giant teleconference, and a campaign would be a months-long series of communications among candidates, propagandists,
18WH
commentators, political action groups and voters. The key is the self-motivating exhilaration that accompanies truly effective interaction with information through a good console and a good network to a good computer."
I would include a good representative in those requirements. If the Government can grasp that, build on their good intentions and put the same weight behind the process that they have put behind the introduction of pre-legislative scrutiny, we could have a much healthier democracy in this country.
10.37 am
Mr. Oliver Heald: It was notable that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), whom I congratulate on introducing this important debate, started by saying that we are struggling as a Parliament to reignite the interest of the public in what we do. He said that we were old-fashioned and out of touch. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), who has just spoken, made the similar point that we appear out of touch to the public. The Modernisation Committee, on which I serve at the moment, is undertaking an inquiry into connecting with the public—something that you, Sir Nicholas, are aware of, as a senior and long-standing member of that Committee. One thing coming out of the evidence is that individual constituents value their Member of Parliament at a local level. They think that their MP is useful, sensible and working in their interests. They value us highly locally. The problem arises with the national perception of what happens in this place.
In looking at the sort of research that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam mentioned, in which experts refer to arrogant, out-of-touch representatives, it is worth bearing in mind that that is not what people think about their own MP. Our challenge is to recreate the opinion that people have of us as individuals for the institution of Parliament as a whole. That was part of the thinking that informed the report of the Hansard Society commission in 1993, which was chaired by Lord Rippon. The commission talked about moving away from party political confrontation, and said that we needed
"a more considered approach whereby Members, from all parts of the House, could be enabled better to inform themselves and to look collectively, in a more systematic way, at the Government's legislative proposals."
Pre-legislative scrutiny was mentioned in particular as a way forward, in the context of Select Committees. During his period as Prime Minister, John Major started the process of publishing draft Bills and, in 1997, the Modernisation Committee moved that process forward by strongly recommending that it become a settled part of our work. It proposed four possible methods of pre-legislative scrutiny: the Select Committee; the permanent new Standing Committee of the sort that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North mentioned; ad hoc Committees of the House of Commons; and Joint Committees of both Houses.
In the experience that the House has had, pre-legislative scrutiny has worked well, but the Joint Committees have been a particular success. Between the two Houses we were able to draw on marvellous expertise for the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. We had people with experience of banking and the

19WH
City and people on the Committee here and in the other place with a long history of interest in financial affairs. As a result, the Act was stronger than it would have been if dealt with simply by a Standing Committee that considers a range of Bills, or a Select Committee that includes interested Members with years of expertise in the subject who cannot be used when it sits because they are engaged on other issues.
Mr. Graham Allen: As Whip on the Financial Services and Markets Bill, I found that one great thing was that much dead wood was cleared away by the expertise and the pre-legislative scrutiny. Owing to the co-operation of the parties, we were able to focus at length in Committee on the real issues. As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) pointed out, it is a tremendous help if we can remove non-contentious and detailed issues and focus on genuine differences. That is what the Committee stage should be about.
Mr. Heald: I completely agree, and we strongly support pre-legislative scrutiny. As the hon. Members for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) and for Nottingham, North mentioned, the Communications Bill featured another Joint Committee. People felt it did an extremely good job; it pulled in people from both Houses with expertise, and the online forum appears to have been very successful.
Nick Toon from ITV reviewed the Communications Bill and its pre-legislative scrutiny, and spoke to members of the Committee, who concluded that
"the innovation of an online forum providing members of the public with direct access and an impact to the process of law making as it unfolded"—
provided—
"a genuine opportunity for a broader public involvement."
Parliament should consider that and say, "Here is an example of something that has worked well. Can we build on it for the future?"
I am slightly concerned about how to frame the online forum. On the one hand, it will be good if the public feel able to express a strong view about a particular provision in a Bill. We know that there can be campaigns to scrap certain provisions or to include new clause x, and there is nothing wrong with that. We should perhaps take such a volume of representations into account. However, one can see that it might interfere with receiving the sort of detailed policy proposals and information about provisions that other hon. Members have described.
Brian White: Is that any different from the number of postcards that we receive on those same campaigns?
Mr. Heald: Of course it is not. However, if Parliament does the online survey that informs the work of the Committee, there is the danger that, if tens of thousands use the electronic postcard approach, the process of mediation could become difficult. It might be hard to tease the good points from the bad. I wonder whether we
20WH
need a sophisticated approach in which some online polling sits alongside more detailed scrutiny of particular issues.
Mr. Graham Allen: It is important to remember that the House and the Committee would retain total control of the process at all points. Therefore, if they wished to experiment with online polling, they could do so, although I would not be particularly supportive of that. If they wanted to create a chat room where individuals with strong views could interact, that could happen, as I think happened with the Communications Bill. However, the key issue is specificity—looking at particular ideas or even clauses, and having concrete proposals come forward. That to me is the main reason to have an e-mail channel from an elector, which is no different from a letter or a personal conversation with a Member of Parliament.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: Order. Before the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) replies to that intervention, I remind him that although I do not wish in any way to interrupt the flow and spontaneity of the debate, we want the Minister to have adequate time to reply.
Mr. Heald: I am sure that I can allow that to happen in just a moment, Sir Nicholas.
I agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham, North: the point that has been made is perfectly fair. In Committee, one often finds it necessary to have a debate about the principle of a clause, perhaps in a debate on an amendment that is the first in a group relating to that clause. When one is undertaking such a debate, the issue is not detailed scrutiny or the wording of the clause, but the principle of the clause. It may be necessary to find some way of teasing out an overall public opinion about the principle of a clause from the more detailed points about it, variations to it, and so on. However that is only a point of detail. We should continue online scrutiny side by side with the other methods of pre-legislative scrutiny, such as taking oral evidence and the like.
The number of draft Bills under the Government has been 32 so far, excluding this Session, in which I believe that there will possibly be 12 and certainly 10. It is good that we have built up the number from about two or three a year to about 10 or 12 a year. I hope that that can continue, though not if the Select Committees are overloaded, but rather on the basis that we can have enough Joint Committees, ad hoc Committees and so on to draw together the expertise of both Houses. However, we should still allow Select Committees to continue their important work of scrutinising the whole breadth of work that a Department does, not just that on one Bill. I warmly welcome this debate and congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham, North on bringing it forward.
10.48 am
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Phil Woolas): May I start by reciprocating your best wishes for a happy and prosperous new year, Sir Nicholas, to you, your support staff and all hon. Members?
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) both on securing this Adjournment debate and on his wider campaign to

21WH
improve the use of new technology in parliamentary scrutiny and, through that, public participation in the parliamentary process. Many hon. Members share the objectives of his campaign, which should not be seen as a techie or technocrat campaign, but something vitally important to help Parliament reconnect. Polling evidence shows that people respect their Members of Parliament. As the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) said, members of the public greatly respect such activities as case work, taking a lead on local issues and representing the interests of the constituency. However, according to the evidence—and common sense—they do not seem to respect the yah-boo nature of activities in this place that they see through the media. Online pre-legislative scrutiny is one measure that can help to square that circle, so the debate is important.
Turning to specifics, there is the question of what we mean by online scrutiny. Subject to negotiations, there will be up to 12 draft Bills—nine are currently out for scrutiny, and they are available on the parliamentary website. All Committees have published e-mail addresses, so in one sense they are already open to online pre-legislative scrutiny. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North is referring to more than that. He is referring to the online forums, such as that conducted by the Joint Committee on the draft Communications Bill in 2001–02, which many Members have also referred to.
The Government's policy towards the modernisation of the House of Commons and its procedures has two objectives. The first is to improve the efficiency of procedures for all involved. The second, which is much more important, is, in the words of yesterday's leader column in The Times, which commented on sitting hours,
"to make Parliament more relevant and inviting to those outside its precincts."
Our policy of improving and expanding e-scrutiny of legislation is set within that context.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I briefly set out the background to our policy. The Government are keen to explore how new communications media can enrich the relationship between Parliament, the public and us, and we welcome Parliament's work in that area. A number of Bills have already been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, although that does not necessarily imply online scrutiny. Nine draft Bills were examined by Committees during the last Session to attempt to identify possible problems if they were introduced as legislation.
The passage of the Communications Bill was assisted by publication in draft, and the process included an online scrutiny exercise. The background is that a Joint Committee was set up in May 2002. The process involved webcasting the evidence sessions and the use of an online discussion forum to gather further information, views and evidence. In this debate, Members have told us the benefits of that process to both the legislation and the members of the Committee. Other examples of parliamentary action include the inquiry by the Information Committee into how Members can use technology to enhance working practices and their communications with their constituents. It produced a report, "Digital Technology: Working for Parliament and the Public", which made
22WH
several recommendations. The Procedure Committee has produced recommendations on the electronic tabling of questions and how we can improve that process.
Most comprehensively, the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology has produced a number of reports concerning IT, including reports on Government IT projects in July 2003, a report on broadband internet access in July 2002 and a report on electronic privacy. While keeping both Houses informed on public dialogue activities in science and technology, POST has pioneered the use of online discussions to help Parliament consider a broad spectrum of views on current issues. In January 2002, POST commissioned an online discussion document, floodforum.net, examining the causes, consequences and communication of flooding. The aim of the forum was to bring together people affected by flooding.
The parliamentary all-party domestic violence group conducted an online consultation called Womenspeak. Again, the Hansard Society conducted the consultation, which provided electronic channels for survivors of domestic violence to provide information and personal testimony. That is an example of the way in which groups in the community can take up the opportunity for online consultation, which was a point made by my hon. Friend.
On the Government side, we published a report in July 2002 entitled "In the service of democracy". The report set out our thinking on e-democracy and invited comments, and the consultation ended in October 2002. It includes a section on parliamentary scrutiny, which states that parliamentary and Assembly websites enable the public to follow debates and to find out how their representative voted. The Parliament website also includes explanatory information on the history of Parliament, the legislative process and Bills before Parliament. In January 2003, a technical summary of the consultation exercise and copies of the responses were published online. The Department for Constitutional Affairs and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister are taking the e-voting agenda forward through a programme of local council pilots. The Government have also set up an interdepartmental group on e-participation to develop and share good practice and to embed the principles of e-participation across Government. I could give many other examples. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has conducted an online discussion on the new European constitution. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ran an online debate on genetically modified foods. The Department for Work and Pensions held an online consultation on the very important issue of pensions, and there are other examples outside Government Departments.
It is important to note the difference between consultation on draft or actual legislation and consultation on the policies that they represent. My hon. Friend made an interesting point about the debate on tuition fees. As he knows, the proposals were published in White Paper form in January last year, but the debate took off only when legislation was proposed. I suggest that that level of interest would be replicated in online consultation and e-representation. That is the

23WH
advantage of e-consultation on legislation rather than just on broader consultation documents such as White Papers and Green Papers. That difference has been brought out in this debate, and that has been very helpful.
I should perhaps point out for the benefit of the House that selected Committee meetings have been webcast for some time. From this month, all public Select and Standing Committees will be webcast, although there will be a slight delay in real time in transmission for a trial period. I understand that, initially, some will be broadcast in audio only. The two Houses are paying the costs of the exercise. Each Select Committee webcast will have a link to an information page about each hearing prepared by Committee staff. It will include the Committee's electronic inbox address. There has been progress in this area.
Mr. Graham Allen: It is very interesting to hear the record so far, but, as one of the people who are to blame for not allowing the Minister enough time to reply fully, may I ask him to turn his attention to the future? What is the Government's aspiration? Is it to give all Bills, or at least more Bills, online pre-legislative scrutiny?
Mr. Woolas: My hon. Friend's intervention is very timely as I turn to that part of my speech.
It is the Government's intention and policy to increase the amount of legislation that is subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. There has been steady progress on that, and I am grateful for the recognition that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire gave it. The Government's policy is to increase the amount of pre-legislative scrutiny done online in the forums or the ways
24WH
that he suggests, and that means not just what is, perhaps, superficial online consultation but more in-depth consultation. We recognise the benefits of that.
Of course, as hon. Members would expect, there are some caveats. Sir Nicholas, you will follow with great interest the major caveat, which is that the process of scrutiny is the property of the Committees of the House, not the Government. The Government can encourage and are encouraging it, and I heed what was said about my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I being in a position to influence it. Hon. Members will be interested to learn that my right hon. Friend recently wrote to the Chairmen of Select Committees through the Liaison Committee about the pre-legislative scrutiny process in this Session. Of course, without my giving the debates away, we are beginning work on the fourth session of Parliament, which will begin next October or November.
For their own part, the Government are using online consultation on legislative and policy proposals. The office of the e-envoy is ready to assist Parliament in the use of new communications media, and much work has already been done. As I said, draft Bills are available on the parliamentary website, and all Committees have published their e-mail addresses. It is not just or even primarily legislative scrutiny that can benefit from e-consultation. The Government are willing to consider how they can facilitate Committees wishing to carry out more pre-legislative scrutiny online.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North for raising this important subject and for his energetic and persistent efforts to encourage online consultation. It is for Parliament and its Committees to decide whether and how best to conduct pre-legislative scrutiny online, and the Government will do all they can to help.

Tuition Fees
11 am
Mr. Eric Joyce: I want to raise three broad issues concerning the principle of variable tuition fees for undergraduates at higher education institutions in England. I expect the principle to be contained in the Government's higher education Bill, which is likely to be published later this week, but I understand that under the rules of this Chamber hon. Members may not use Adjournment debates to propose or to seek to influence legislation, so I shall restrict myself to asking the Minister to comment on the nub of the three matters. Those are: how variable fees will affect people from a working-class background; the implications of variable fees for England-domiciled students studying in Scotland or Wales and Scotland or Wales-domiciled students studying in England; and how variable fees will affect the funding arrangements for students of midwifery in England.
As we enter the 21st century, people who are privately educated make up around half the students at many of our universities or, for the purposes of this debate, higher education institutions. The institutions in question tend to be what we now refer to as Russell group institutions and I shall use that term, although from my point of view it also includes a number of institutions that are formally outside the Russell group, such as Bath university, a number of art colleges and one or two other institutions.
The rate of attendance at private schools in any year has been more or less stable for some years at around 7 per cent., so a privately educated child is around 13 times more likely to attend a higher education institution. If we move to the next stage of a graduate's life, we discover that fast-stream entrance to the civil service, the acquiring of places in prestigious chambers by law graduates, training in the dominant accountancy practices and the marking up for consultant status of medical graduates—in short, recruitment to those appointments that will provide the new graduate with the greatest chance of reaching the top of their elite field—are utterly dominated by Russell group graduates.
That trend needs testing to see whether it is contemporary rather than historical, and if some sceptics feel that many non-Russell group graduates are moving towards the top of their professions they should look forward a couple of decades in a graduate's life to the origins of today's new QCs, hospital consultants, partners in large accounting firms, grade 3 civil servants, rising chief executive officers and potential CEOs of private sector companies. They will find only a modest change in social class terms during the past few decades. If they move on another couple of decades, they may find a judge or two who did not attend Oxford or Cambridge, but pluckily fought their way up from modest beginnings at Bristol, Exeter or Durham universities after public school. However, that hardly matters because all those non-Oxbridge alma maters that we see cropping up in the curricula vitae of the odd new circuit judge today indicate that they attended a Russell group university.
The pattern is simple. Someone who attends a private school is massively more likely to attend a Russell group university. Someone who attends a Russell group
26WH
university is massively more likely than someone who did not to become a leading member of one of our most influential institutions, whether in the public or private sector. Nothing much has changed for years or, indeed, for decades.
The price that we as a nation pay for such a preposterous state of affairs is high. It is a matter of national shame that a modern democracy should have a collective education system or systems that produce an outcome of such staggering unfairness. It is also deeply inefficient, as we are excluding millions of people with the potential to excel in any one of a large number of professions.
Enter the Government's plans to permit higher education institutions to levy an additional charge over the common contribution from students up to a limit of £3,000, depending on the course and the institution. What implications does the variable fee principle have for the injustice and inefficiency so clearly displayed in the present allocation and pattern of higher education places, and therefore in so many national positions of institutional leadership?
Some people may believe it perfectly reasonable to view our entire layered higher education system as so unjust that it could effectively be dismantled through allocating resources away from the Russell group universities, controlling all admissions centrally and perhaps requiring recruiters to apply positive discrimination measures to skew recruiting away from the privately educated or, perhaps, the Russell group educated. Yet that would not only have a significant and negative impact on the ability of a relatively small group of UK institutions to compete in the world research market, but it would remove the power of each university to be fit for a given purpose. Fitness for purpose is at the centre of the higher education debate.
One of the Government's great successes is to have continued the expansion of higher education so that about half our young people will enjoy a higher education of some description. However, although the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development figures show that the rate of return on investment in a university degree remains higher in the UK than in any other country, the fact is that the new era has brought about a need for a highly diversified higher education sector that supplies a range of different needs—some highly vocational and some oriented around local needs with some institutions configured for competing with the best in the US and other countries, such as China. Many of those rising countries are about to overhaul this country, unless appropriately organised institutions in the UK respond to the global challenges presented to them.
In such an environment, it is clear that although all universities must be excellent in terms of their own purpose, some will continue to have the purpose of providing the upper professional echelons and many professions, although not all, with talent. The pragmatic policy, therefore, is to recognise that fact and ensure that access to those university and institutional places is opened up to everyone regardless of social background. Only by doing that we will open up the leadership of our leading national institutions and companies to all, regardless of social class background.

27WH
The Government's plans for variable fees, which we must discuss in outline as we will not know the detail until later this week, will provide all higher education institutions in England with much-needed additional revenue. Assuming that a proportion of that revenue is earmarked in one way or another for the provision of bursaries, students from working-class backgrounds will, at the least, almost certainly pay less than at present. For a working-class student at a Russell group university, however, it seems likely that both additional front-end assistance and a reduction in back-end debt may be put in place through a combination of direct Government assistance and assistance from the institution. I have recently spoken to a number of working-class school students in my constituency with grade projections suggesting that their grades will come up to scratch to allow them to attend Russell group universities. I have seen no evidence that they will make less rational choices than their middle-class counterparts.
If there is a trend in my constituency, it is for working-class students to stay at home while they study. That is made more feasible in Scotland than elsewhere, perhaps, by the fact that the great majority of people and institutions are located in the central belt, so most institutions can be reached by most people in under an hour and a half.
Annabelle Ewing: The hon. Gentleman touched on the top-up proposals, as well as the outline that we expect later this week, and on the fact that many Scottish students study in Scotland. He will have received a copy of the report of the Enterprise and Culture Committee of the Scottish Parliament, which concluded in December that the top-up proposals, in their current form, would have an adverse impact on higher education in Scotland. Does he intend to vote in favour of the proposals and, hence, against the Scottish interest?
Mr. Joyce: It is pretty self-evident from what I have said that I support the thrust of the Bill. I shall say something about the debate in Scotland and the report, of which we have recently had a copy. It is quite helpful, but it indicates that there are a number of weaknesses in the hon. Lady's argument. I shall come to it in due course.
The trend to which I referred does not extend to working-class students determinedly choosing universities that make offers lower than their grade projections or results. However, Scottish higher education institutions, such as those in Edinburgh and Glasgow, and indeed Glasgow art college, suffer the same working-class deficit as their English counterparts.
The reasons for the working-class deficit at so many of our higher education institutions go beyond issues of debt or, put another way, the best investment any young person can make. A number of interlinking factors, social and educational, need to be understood if we are to improve the situation. The key will lie in a regulatory regime that allows universities freedom to find their own solutions, but which holds them to account for any failure to increase yearly the number of students from working-class backgrounds who pass through their gates.
28WH
I am conscious that some vice-chancellors might be tempted to pay lip service to the principle of better access in the early days, but to let things lapse over time. Can my right hon. Friend the Minister assure me that the office for fair access—which will, I am sure, be included in this week's Bill—will consider the interests in some of our Russell group institutions that could lead them over the years to lower the priority of attracting ever-increasing numbers of working-class students?
I shall deal briefly with the issue of Scotland-domiciled students in England, and vice-versa, and how variable fees will impact on the phenomenon. Every year, several thousand students from Scotland attend English institutions and many more travel in the opposite direction. The Enterprise and Culture Committee of the Scottish Parliament recently concluded an inquiry into, among other things, how the higher education White Paper will affect variable fees and how that will affect students in Scotland, as well as how it will affect research on other issues within the Scottish higher education system—if we see it as a discrete system, which is open to question.
As the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) said, the report was circulated to all Members representing Scottish constituencies. That was helpful, in that it informed us about the relative strengths and weaknesses of the arguments surrounding variable fees. The Enterprise and Culture Committee has said that to apply variable fees in England would be to damage Scottish universities and would affect what it calls the cross-border movement by students. It has been implied to colleagues in this House with Scottish constituencies that new variable fees for England are therefore undesirable. However, at the same time, the Committee has recognised the need for universities to be provided with increased funding so as not to disadvantage Scottish universities in competition with English institutions.
It would be odd to argue that Scottish increases should come about simply as a response to a new funding stream available to English institutions, rather than because additional funds will provide for higher-quality outputs. That would suggest that what is important is not quality, but funding equality, whether or not the funding is appropriate. It seems reasonable to assume that Scottish institutions and their supporters want the same funding that will become available to English institutions so as to make continuous improvements to the quality of their output. The issue, therefore, is not whether institutions in England and Scotland need more money, but where it comes from.
As you are well aware, Sir Nicholas, it is not for Members of this House to say how the Scottish Parliament should allocate its resources, but it is reasonable for us to suggest that the two systems can learn a great deal from each other's best practice. For example, the Scottish system provides for a back-loading of debt accrued through tuition fees. I believe that the UK Government have learned some interesting lessons from that. It is a principle that they might adopt in the higher education Bill, with an additional emphasis, I hope, on providing additional help at the front end for students from working-class backgrounds. Conversely, for those who call for central Government or the Executive to provide more extra funding from general taxation, or to raid another departmental

29WH
budget in order to favour higher education, it is worth pointing out that, in social justice terms, that might be one of the least efficient uses of taxpayers' money.
Last week, in a first-class article in The Guardian, Polly Toynbee flagged up research on the linguistic skills of children that was recently conducted in the United States. A number of astonishing details emerged, all of which point in the same direction in terms of education policy. By the age of three, the children of professional parents have vocabularies over four times larger than those of the children of parents whose only income is state benefits. Indeed, at the same age, the privileged children have larger vocabularies than those less well-off parents. There was an almost total correlation between linguistic ability at three and subsequent success in the education system.
Other recent research has shown that until the age of around 22 months, the latent intellectual abilities of children appear to outweigh the effects of social experience. Thereafter, latent intellectual ability pales almost into insignificance, and by the age of six the least bright children from more privileged backgrounds have easily overhauled all but the very brightest children from less well-off backgrounds.
The lesson is clear. If we wish to deploy new resources to have a direct and specific impact on social equity and justice, including future patterns in the uptake of higher education, they should be spent on young children—on increasing the income of the least well-off families and on early-years and pre-school education. The debate on variable fees should be put in that perspective. It is not good enough simply to demand more money from the Government—as some organisations, such as Universities Scotland, are doing, and as the Scottish Parliament's Enterprise and Culture Committee appears to have done—without a thought for where those resources might come from, nor for where they might produce better and fairer returns for the least well-off.
On the matter of cross-border students, it has been proposed by Universities Scotland that England-domiciled students should pay fees if they attend Scottish universities, while Scotland-domiciled students and those from other European countries should not. That is a recipe for a simple binary divide in Scotland, with universities such as Edinburgh and St. Andrews positively touting for more English students, thereby leaving Scottish—domiciled students at a disadvantage. Indeed, the proposal is so weak that one wonders whether Universities Scotland may have some other agenda altogether, not yet fully exposed.
On the basis of what I have said—I do not have time to cover several points that I wished to raise—will the Minister confirm that he intends to maintain regular contact with the Scottish Parliament and its Ministers, the Welsh Assembly and its Ministers and, in due course, the Northern Ireland Assembly and its Ministers to ensure that we learn the lessons of best practice from each other?
Finally, I want to speak about students of midwifery in England. The position of student midwives with regard to tuition fees was set out in a parliamentary
30WH
answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) by my right hon. Friend the Minister:
"All NHS-funded students also have their liability for a tuition fee contribution (worth up to £1,100 for the academic year 2002—03) met on their behalf, without means testing."—[Official Report, 23 October 2003; Vol. 411, c. 733W.]
The Royal College of Midwives certainly wants the situation to continue, particularly in view of the continuing shortage of midwives in the NHS. To say the least, the college welcomes the fact that the head count of midwives is increasing under this Government. However, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), has accepted the specific difficulties of recruitment and retention among midwives. That has led to the college being concerned that if the higher education institutions at which midwives train choose significantly to raise the price of their courses, it may discourage potential midwives from entering training.
On reflection, it seems to me that a sound pricing mechanism should prevent that, as it would satisfy demand. Faced with a guaranteed sum from the NHS to cover the fees of each student, some education institutions might be tempted to increase fees beyond a true or reasonable market rate. However, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will have given the matter thought. I hope that he clarifies the position vis-à-vis student midwives.
11.18 am
The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education (Alan Johnson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) on securing the debate when this issue is mildly topical. He raised four points. The first was the social class gap—a crucial issue that is central to the Government's thinking on the subject. The second was liaison with the devolved Administrations. The third was the regulator—the proposed office for fair access—and the fourth the position among midwives and nurses in the NHS. I shall try to cover all four in the short time available.
My hon. Friend was right to talk of the social class gap. You and I, Sir Nicholas, are far too young to remember this, but just over 40 years ago the Robbins report of 1963 considered this question, when university education was the preserve of a small elite-between 5 and 6 per cent. of 18 to 30-year-olds. The report said that if we introduced free higher education with generous maintenance grants we would close that social class gap, but the evidence of the past 40 years is that the social class gap did not narrow—in fact, it widened. Many other benefits were achieved from the Robbins report, but that central issue—I do not think it hyperbole to describe it as an obscene social class gap—continues stubbornly to live on in this country.
This is not simply a matter of entry to higher education, and the social class gap exists for a number of reasons. As we set out last June in our report on widening participation, it begins with the under-fives. All the analysis and research indicate that at around the age of 22 months some social class divisions begin to show. There is a problem with attainment in literacy and numeracy in particular among primary school pupils.

31WH
That is true in England more so than in Scotland and Wales with the drop-out rate at 16, and there is also a problem of aspiration. All those issues must be considered together and we describe them as the four As—attainment, aspiration, application and admissions.
We think that admissions, which in this respect means universities discriminating deliberately against youngsters from working-class backgrounds, is the least part of that problem. This may not have been true 15, 20 or even 30 years ago, but we are convinced that all universities, which includes the Russell group, modern universities and the 1994 group, are serious about widening access. Although a separate piece of work is being produced on admissions, I want to concentrate on the other issues—aspiration, application and attainment. Our policy has to be seen as starting with the under-fives—the Sure Start programme makes an important contribution to that debate—and with literacy and numeracy among primary school students, the figures for which are still a problem, but far better than they were six years ago in terms of attainment at age 11 in literacy and numeracy.
Serious work has been carried out on the drop-out rate at 16 and on how to encourage youngsters from a poorer background to stay on at school past 16. In a situation where jobs are available and the unemployment rate is at its lowest for many years, what they will earn in the job market is obviously a factor. The education maintenance allowance, which was introduced and piloted in my constituency and others, has had a marked success, which is why later this year we will roll it out nationwide and there will be £1,500, or £30 per week, for every student from poorer backgrounds to stay on in education.
I turn to aspiration, about which my hon. Friend raised an important point. If we can get youngsters to the right attainment level—two decent A-levels—nine out of 10 will go on to higher education. There is still a problem, because the 10 per cent. who do not do so generally come from non-traditional backgrounds—to use the jargon he mentioned. We should see the nine out of 10 who continue as an important statistic. Once they reach the required attainment level, however, they do not always apply to the universities that would best match their abilities. In other words, we see a large gap between the number of students from working-class and from other backgrounds who even just apply to some Russell group universities, all of which are trying to solve the problem and to attract more applications. That is why the issue of applications is important.
Some people—such as Peter Lampl, who runs the Sutton Trust—suggest that we should have post-qualification applications. Why should youngsters apply before they know their results? Youngsters from non-traditional backgrounds would feel more confident in applying to Russell group universities if they knew their results beforehand. That is an important point that the Schwartz group on admissions has raised.
32WH
In the context of the Government proposals on variable fees, my hon. Friend was right to raise the fact that there is a new element. We say that we have to introduce the funding from somewhere, to expand higher education and invest more in it. I will not go into detail, but we believe that our proposals are the right way to bring that money in. On the social class gap, our proposals get rid of upfront fees. Although poorer students did not pay those, many had lodged in their minds the fact that they would have to pay or get their parents to pay for them to go to university—so that problem goes. We will reintroduce a maintenance grant for poorer students. We will carry into the new arrangements fee remission up to £1,125, which exists at the moment. We will increase the repayment threshold, which currently applies to loans but in future will apply to a loan plus fee, from £10,000 to £15,000.
We are also to introduce the regulator, and I assure my hon. Friend that it will have teeth. Incidentally, all universities are free to charge between nothing and £3,000, so charging at the higher end is not just the preserve of Russell group universities. That will be a difference between courses rather than universities. The office for fair access will say that to charge more than the current fee of £1,125, universities must reach an agreement with it. Without an agreement, the universities will not be able to increase their fees—that is a real financial imperative. Such agreements will last for six years. If the regulator, which will receive an annual report, believes that a university is failing on any of its commitments in the agreement, it can fine it through the Higher Education Funding Council for England funding, which makes up 90 per cent. of university funding. So, this is a regulator with teeth.
Liaison with devolved Administrations is crucial, particularly as the Bill will be needed to devolve student finance completely to Wales. Student finance is devolved completely to Scotland, but only partially to Wales. This is not true confessions time, but I would not say that we had the best liaison when we published the White Paper a year ago. However, we have learned from those errors and we are in close contact with the devolved Administrations on such matters. On the issue of the Scottish Parliament report, which was raised by my hon. Friend, I support devolution on the basis of what it means—it might mean that arrangements differ from one country to the other. However, we are learning from the Scottish experience, in particular from the fact that graduates repay after they have graduated and once they are earning decent money.
For my final point, which I wish to make about the national health service, I shall refer to a text because it is a matter for another Department. However, I think that I will be able to give my hon. Friend the assurances he is looking for. He is right that the NHS contracts directly for pre-registration student places in nursing and midwifery. Those places are funded by the NHS and not, as all other student places are, through a combination of fees and HEFCE grant money. He is right to say that such students do not pay student fees. The NHS contracts at a local level; the contracts specify the price charged for training and the fact that the students do not pay.

33WH
The Department of Health will continue to monitor demand for places and a national model contract, which is being developed, will continue to preclude higher education institutions from charging increased tuition fees for NHS-funded courses. The simple answer for the Royal College of Nursing, which is concerned about the matter, is that at the moment the courses are free and that in the future, whatever the fees under the variable-fee system, the midwifery courses will continue to be free.
11.30 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Scottish Mps (Voting Rights)
2 pm
Sir Nicholas Winterton: I welcome all Members present—a large number of whom are from north of Hadrian's wall—back to the House of Commons. I hope that they have all had a restful and enjoyable, if rather short, Christmas break.
The first debate this afternoon will be initiated by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) and is about the voting rights of hon. Members who represent Scottish seats.
Mr. James Gray: First, Sir Nicholas, on behalf of those of us from England, including we Jocks who represent English seats, and those from north of Hadrian's wall, I thank you for your very kind good wishes. I hope that the next time we meet in this august Chamber, I am able to call you by your proper title; Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that the motion enabling you to be called that has not yet been passed in the House. I hope that that will be done quickly so that we can again call you by your proper title.
I welcome the debate on this hugely important issue, which has been around for some 30 years in one format or another—
Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: The hon. Gentleman mentions 30 years. What about Mrs. Thatcher's reign, during which she imposed the poll tax on Scotland against the will of the majority of Members in Scotland? How does he account for that on the basis of what he is about to say?
Sir Nicholas Winterton: Order. I am not sure that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) should answer that question. How could the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) know what the hon. Gentleman is about to say?
Mr. Gray: I will come back to the hon. Gentleman's point in a moment, because he makes a very good point; one of the driving forces behind the devolution argument in the 1980s and early 1990s was that, somehow or other, a Conservative Government in London were imposing their will on a Labour majority in Scotland. That is precisely the point that I shall shortly seek to make in reverse. How could a Labour majority in Scotland impose its will on a Conservative majority here? That has been an important issue for the past 30 years, ever since the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) first raised it.
Today's debate should not be about devolution; we have had that. The Scottish Parliament is in place, and we are not here to debate it. I secured this debate to safeguard the interests of the voters of North Wiltshire and of the English people of this great nation of ours, whose rights are being removed by Scottish Members of Parliament having equal status to vote in Westminster.
First, I make it absolutely plain that this is an English debate, and I am delighted that a Minister from an English Department has come to answer the debate. The West Lothian question, which was so well put forward so long ago, has been highlighted in recent weeks by two

35WH
or three particular episodes, the first of which was the poorly thought through question of foundation hospitals. The Prime Minister would not have been able to get that policy in place were it not for the support of Members of Parliament from north of the border. Blithely ignoring the fact that the Scottish Labour party is against foundation hospitals, they thought it perfectly reasonable to come south of the border and—by a majority of only 17—impose foundation hospitals on us in England. That is outrageous.
The same seems to be about to occur with top-up fees; it appears that the Prime Minister will be humiliated in this place unless he can persuade the tartan mafia from north of the border to come down to England and enforce top-up fees in English universities, despite the fact that those fees will not affect Scottish universities.
Mr. Michael Connarty: On a point of order, Sir Nicholas. Is it unparliamentary to call Members who represent Scottish constituencies a mafia? A mafia is clearly defined as a secret society; we are a public, elected body.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: I think that that point will have been noted by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray). I can only hope that the language used in this debate is sensible, rational and responsible.
Mr. Gray: Sensible, rational and responsible are precisely the right words, Sir Nicholas. It is an enormously serious debate These are important matters for the people of England and they should not be taken light-heartedly, as suggested in one or two interventions. If this place is to be taken seriously, and if the Union is to be preserved, it is terribly important that parliamentarians from both north and south of the border should treat the matter extraordinarily seriously. I do not intend to allow it to be reduced.
Mr. George Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman referred to foundation hospitals and tuition fees, neither of which applies in Scotland. Neither do they apply in Northern Ireland, yet the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues do not refer to Northern Ireland Members participating in votes. Why does the hon. Gentleman pick on Scottish Members?
Mr. Gray: The right hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. For the sake of good order, I should make it plain that although I am using the word "English", I sometimes include the Welsh or Northern Irish.
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gray: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall make progress.
The right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is right that if we solve the Scottish and English question, that solution, under
36WH
certain circumstances, may be applicable to Northern Ireland and Wales. I shall speak later about my proposal that Mr. Speaker be asked to certify whether particular Bills cover England only, England and Wales, England, Wales and Northern Ireland, or the entire United Kingdom. However, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. It may sometimes be more appropriate to refer to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland or a variation thereof, but for the sake of good order I shall simply use the word "Scotland".
It is bizarre that a Labour Government with a gigantic majority in Westminster should need to call on Scottish votes in order to impose in England matters that the Scots have already turned down. How odd it would be if the reverse were the case; if, by some parliamentary procedure that does not yet exist, we were able to go to Edinburgh and enforce on the Scottish people some matter that the Scots had turned down. That would be entirely unsustainable.
That is what happened with foxhunting. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) sought many times to intervene on me when we debated foxhunting in England; a most important issue in my constituency. Scotland came to the conclusion that foxhunting could continue there in a particular, but not very satisfactory, form; the hon. Gentleman then came down to England with his Scottish friends to vote for an outright ban on foxhunting in England. That is entirely unsustainable, but there is an easy way to solve the problem.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan), to the hon. Member for Linlithgow and to members of the Scottish National party, who tend not to vote on purely English matters. That is an honourable self-denying ordinance. However, I understand that there has been some slippage and that Scottish Nationalists recently voted on foundations hospitals.
Mr. David Marshall: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Members of the House are and should continue to be equal? Another solution would be for all the regions of England to have devolved assemblies such as those in. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Everyone would then be in the same situation.
Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman makes two points. To the first, the answer is no. By no stretch of the imagination are all Members of the House equal. I am responsible to the people of North Wiltshire for health, education, transport and a variety of other matters, but the hon. Gentleman does not have to answer to his constituents on those matters. I have a greater job to play in this place than he does; that is an inevitable consequence of the devolution settlement. That is one of the tough facts of life. The hon. Gentleman has no say whatever on health, education, transport and a variety of other matters in his constituency. I do. I represent the people of North Wiltshire on everything involving the Government. He cannot do so. We already have two tiers of Members of Parliament in the House.
Secondly, answering the West Lothian question by saying that some kind of regional structure should be set up in England ignores the fact that people in England do not want it. It is a desperate attempt by the Labour party

37WH
to answer the West Lothian question. The solution to which I shall turn in a moment answers the question much more elegantly, at much less cost and in a much more acceptable way to the people of England, about whom we are talking. We should encourage Scottish Members of Parliament not to vote on English matters. However, that would not be enough, which brings me on to a similar subject that I find equally obnoxious.
How can it be that Members of Parliament who represent Scottish seats can come down here and be Secretaries of State in purely English Departments? How can the Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), speak on health in England? If I, the Member of Parliament for North Wiltshire, went to Edinburgh and said that I had come to look after the health service in Scotland, there would be a national outcry. But the Secretary of State is a Member of Parliament in Scotland who comes down here to pontificate on the health service in England.
Mr. Russell Brown: If what the hon. Gentleman is saying were taken to its logical conclusion, no London Member could be Secretary of State for Transport or vote on transport issues, which, at the end of the day, now lie within the remit of the Mayor and the Greater London assembly.
Mr. Gray: I certainly am not saying that, for the simple reason that neither the London assembly nor the Welsh Assembly has legislative powers. Only the Scottish Parliament has legislative powers; over health, education and transport, which are entirely devolved to Holyrood. None the less, the Secretary of State for Health comes down here from Hamilton, North and Bellshill and pontificates on the health service in North Wiltshire. How can that be? That is unsustainable and the people of England will not continue to take it. How can it be that the part-time Secretary of State for Scotland comes down to England and pontificates on transport here?
Miss Anne Begg: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a further anomaly? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has at least been elected, whereas large numbers of people in another place pontificate on legislation with no elected right to do so. There is no second Chamber in the Scottish Parliament to review Scottish health issues. Does that mean that the House of Lords should not review any health issues, in order to achieve the parity about which the hon. Gentleman is talking?
Mr. Gray: I most interested to hear the hon. Lady apparently propose that Labour Ministers in the House of Lords should lose their posts. I would not necessarily subscribe to that position; perhaps she should take that matter up with her own party.
The second self-denying ordinance that we should introduce is not to allow Members of Parliament from Scottish seats to be Ministers in English Departments. That is straightforward, and I call on the Prime Minister to introduce it at the first available reshuffle. We must get rid of Scottish Members of Parliament running English Departments.
38WH
Those two self-denying ordinances are not enough. We still have the curious anomaly of vast over-representation in Scotland. How can it be that there are 121—[HON. MEMBERS: "129."] How can it be that there are 129 MSPs? I am grateful to hon. Members from north of the border. I take no great interest in such matters and it is important that I should leave them to the Scots. I am concerned only with North Wiltshire and am not at all familiar with the way the Scottish Parliament works, nor do I seek to become so. I am most grateful to hon. Members for putting me right. Currently, 71 MSPs—[HoN. MEMBERS: "72."] I thank hon. Members for correcting me—[Laughter.] Hon. Members seem to think the issue is funny, but I am making an important point. I take no interest in such matters; I am interested in North Wiltshire. I know how many MPs there are in Wiltshire, but I am not aware of how many MPs there are in Scotland.
A total of 201 parliamentarians look after the 5 million people in Scotland. Roughly speaking, for every 25,000 people in Scotland there is one parliamentarian, whether an MSP or an MP. That contrasts with England, where each of us looks after a total of 100,000 people. I alone look after every possible issue in North Wiltshire—health, education and transport—that affects those 100,000 people. Why, then, do I receive the same pay and conditions as a Member of Parliament who comes down here and does a great deal less work? There are two tiers of Members of Parliament in this place. Some, such as me, are fully employed and look after every aspect of their constituencies, whereas others, including many hon. Members in the Room today, do not.
Debates such as this would have no purpose were it not for hon. Members making proposals to put things right. I have a proposal, which I shall call the North Wiltshire answer to the West Lothian question. First, we must have only English votes for English matters. That seems perfectly straightforward.
Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman repeatedly refers to English matters. Has he had a look at the Bills coming up for Second Reading and at the Bills that were before the last Parliament? I was one of the Ministers responsible for the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, some parts of which applied to England, some to England and Wales, some to Scotland and some to Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Should we have jumped in and out of the debate, voting yes on one matter, but not on another? How can one define a purely English matter? Almost no, or very few, Bills before the House apply specifically, in all their aspects, only to England.
Mr. Gray: The right hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point. For example, I believe that a clause or two in the Bill dealing with foundation hospitals referred to Scotland. If one were that way inclined, it would be perfectly possible to insert a clause into almost any Bill that applied to Scotland and thereby somehow justified Scottish Members of Parliament voting on it. I am suggesting that legislation should be simplified so that that does not happen. It would become easy for the Speaker to certify whether a Bill was purely English. After all, we need only look at the devolution settlement to see those issues that have

39WH
been devolved to Scotland. That is no secret, and it is straightforward. Surely it would be possible to say that Bills on those matters will now be dealt with in Scotland, while Bills on such matters in England will be dealt with at Westminster.
Mr. Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gray: If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, he must allow me to answer the point first. He made a good point that not all Bills are easily certifiable and we might ask the Government's business managers to make Bills easier to certify.
Pete Wishart: What would the hon. Gentleman say about English-only devolved legislation that had a negative financial impact and consequence on Scotland? By that I mean issues such as tuition fees and foundation hospitals. Surely it is right and proper that those of us whose duty and responsibility is to defend and protect the Scottish interest have a say in such matters.
Mr. Gray: I suspected that that argument would come up. Almost no Bill passed with regard to England does not have some effect on Scotland. The same applies the other way around, of course. When the Scottish Parliament voted against top-up fees, against foundation hospitals and to allow foxhunting to continue, despite the fact that such matters have an effect here—
Miss Begg: On a point of order, Sir Nicholas. The hon. Gentleman repeats that there has been a vote in the Scottish Parliament on foundation hospitals and on top-up fees. There has not been, on either matter.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: As much as I would like to agree with the hon. Lady, because she is a lady, that is not a point of order for the Chair. I am not responsible for what the hon. Member for North Wiltshire says in his speech on what is clearly an emotive subject.
Mr. Gray: I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me when I try to bring the debate back to where it should be. These are extremely complex and important matters that are not capable of withstanding a barney across the floor. One of the advantages of this Chamber is that it ought to be possible for us to have an intelligent debate about complex matters such as this. To seek to reduce the debate, as the hon. Lady just did, is unfair.
Mr. Donohoe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gray: No. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) will correct me, I am sure, but am I right that the Scottish Labour party is opposed to top-up fees and to foundation hospitals, but that Scottish Labour MPs came down here and voted in favour of
40WH
them—or will shortly be doing so on the second issue—here in Westminster? I think that the hon. Lady wants to correct me.
Miss Begg: The hon. Gentleman said that there had been a vote in the Scottish Parliament on both those issues, but there has not. Nor do I remember a vote at any Scottish Labour party conference on either issue.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: Order. I presume that the hon. Lady is intervening to ask the hon. Gentleman a question. I will allow her to continue if she does so.
Miss Begg: Thank you, Sir Nicholas. Scottish Labour party policy is not the same as Labour party policy. There has been no vote in the Scottish Parliament on either issue, although the hon. Gentleman suggested that there has. Will he correct the record?
Mr. Gray: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for her correction. This is most interesting and I am sure that the Scottish papers will take a keen interest. She now seems to be saying that the Scottish Labour party is in favour of top-up fees for St. Andrews university and for my alma mater, Glasgow university, and in favour of foundation hospitals. I have read the Scottish Labour party manifesto, and I believe that my original presumption was correct; the Scottish Labour party is opposed to those things and has come out against them. I hope that I am right. My point to the hon. Lady is that the Scottish Labour party opposes those proposals but thinks it perfectly reasonable for Scottish Labour Members to come down to Westminster and impose them on England. That is a constitutional outrage that cannot be sustained.
Mr. Ian Davidson: On a point of order, Sir Nicholas.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: Is it a point of order or an intervention?
Mr. Davidson: It is a genuine point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman consistently to mislead the House by suggesting that Scottish Labour MPs came down to Westminster en masse and voted in favour of foundation hospitals? I, for one, voted against them. It should be made clear that some Labour Members voted in favour of foundation hospitals, and that others voted against them.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: I have great regard for the hon. Gentleman and for his stand on many issues. I am not responsible for what a Member says. I can only hope that Members will seek to be as accurate as possible in anything that they say. I am sure that the House has taken note, as has the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), of what the hon. Gentleman just said.
Mr. Gray: My point was not that Scottish Labour Members voted in favour of foundation hospitals, but that they should not have the opportunity here in England to vote in favour of them or against them. These are English matters for English MPs, and it is a

41WH
constitutional outrage that Scottish MPs come to Westminster to pontificate on English matters when I have no opportunity to go north of the border and pontificate on the health service—
Mr. Donohoe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gray: I am sorry, but I will not. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. These are delicate, important and complex constitutional matters, and I raised them in this forum so that we may debate them sensibly. The fact that Scottish MPs have made so many fatuous points of order and silly interventions suggests that I may have hit a raw nerve by suggesting that those Members do not come here and vote on English matters. It appears to be a sensitive matter for MPs who foresee a reduction in their status in Westminster in what I am about to propose.
Mr. Donohoe: To take the hon. Gentleman's argument, which he has so far taken some 23 minutes to make—
Mr. Gray: Thanks to a few interventions.
Mr. Donohoe: To take the hon. Gentleman's argument to its natural conclusion, is he suggesting that no Scotsman should represent an English constituency? If so, he would not be on his feet.
Mr. Gray: That is yet another lightweight point in what should be a serious debate. However, the hon. Gentleman is right that no one is more Scottish than me. My father was Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. I was at Hillhead primary school, Glasgow high school and Glasgow university. I never left the borders of Scotland until I was 21. In my teens, I took a particular interest in my ancestry, and I discovered that not one ancestor came from anywhere other than Scotland. I can say, "You don't get more Scottish than me." I am 100 per cent. Scot, racially. I was 21 when I got out of Scotland. I am now 49 and have spent 28 years down here, which is why I feel no shame in speaking on these matters. This matter has nothing to do with race or where we were born, but with whether people representing the Scots in Scotland should have the right to vote on English matters in Westminster.
Mr. Peter Duncan: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Gray: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not, because I am trying to conclude my remarks. Someone referred to the fact that I had been on my feet for some 20 minutes. That is largely because I have been fairly generous in taking interventions, as I believe the Chamber would agree. Perhaps Members will forgive me if I try to make progress to allow others the opportunity to take part in the debate.
First, we must have a self-denying ordinance; English votes for English matters, with the Scots not taking part in such debates. If that cannot be done, certain English matters could be reserved to English Members, perhaps by certification by Mr. Speaker. Secondly, it is
42WH
important that Scottish Ministers should not take part in English Departments in Westminster. Only English Ministers should take part in them.
My third proposal is rather more radical; none the less, it may have a certain amount to recommend it. As I started to say a moment ago, there are far too many parliamentarians of one sort or another in Scotland. There is a parliamentarian to look after every 25,000 people in Scotland. In England, there is one for every 100,000 people. There would be some merit in a proposal that has been put forward previously; namely, that Members of Parliament in Scotland should go to the Scottish Parliament in Holyrood to discuss Scottish matters on, for example, Mondays and Tuesdays, then come here on Wednesdays and Thursdays to discuss UK matters; perhaps some other suitable arrangement could be made. Simultaneously,English Members of Parliament would sit here or somewhere else in England where it is convenient to discuss English matters on Mondays and Tuesdays and then come here to discuss UK matters on Wednesdays and Thursdays.
That seems a neat and elegant solution to the West Lothian question. It would raise the status of MPs from Scotland and the status of the Scottish Parliament, which then would be equal to the English Parliament south of the border. Scottish MPs at Westminster may not like that proposal, because it would mean that 200 MSPs in Scotland would be competing for the 50 or so seats here. It might well be unattractive to certain members of the Labour party; none the less, it has some elegance.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Superficially neat and elegant it might be, but is there not a problem? Take yesterday, for example. The first we knew about the statement was at 12.20. I have had a lot and a half to say about Lockerbie and Libya, but there would have been no possibility of my coming to London from Edinburgh. The hon. Gentleman may say that Government Departments could arrange statements that might affect Scots for a Wednesday or Thursday, but I have the doubtless unworthy suspicion that the Foreign Secretary would not have delayed his statement on Libya for 48 hours so that Tam Dalyell could come and ask him difficult questions. That really would be asking too much of ministerial and human nature. There is a real difficulty, which can be multiplied many times. All my hon. Friends have particular interests, and they would want to be present for crucial statements. I do not know quite how that would work.
Mr. Gray: Statements on Libya and similar matters would not be the same were it not for the interventions of the Father of the House. I am sure that the business managers would be able to reorganise matters in a way that would take account of that.
The point of my proposal was that no UK business would be heard on Mondays and Tuesdays anyway. Purely English business would be heard, either here in Westminster or possibly in Birmingham or somewhere else. English business would be discussed on Mondays and Tuesdays and UK business would be dealt with on Wednesdays and Thursdays, when Scottish MPs, like English, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs, would be here.
It is a radical proposal. For example, it would require a radical reorganisation of the Scottish parliamentary boundaries—there are all kinds of other implications

43WH
and difficulties associated with it—but it would be an answer to our present problem; namely, the increasing resentment among English constituents at the fact that their lives are affected by votes from north of the border.
Mr. Eric Joyce: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify something for me, as I am slightly puzzled by an aspect of his argument? He seems to be saying that he will probably abstain the next time a Bill comes up that applies only to Scotland; for example, an amendment to the Scotland Act 1998. If that is the case, could he explain why he voted on the Health (Wales) Act 2003 last year?
.Mr. Gray: Scottish matters are never debated in this Parliament. They are debated only in Edinburgh. The only Scottish issues that are debated here are constitutional matters affecting the relationship between this Parliament and Scotland. If that is incorrect, I shall admit that I am wrong. The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. I give him my absolute assurance that if I am presented at some stage in the future with a matter that affects only Scotland and has no effect whatever on my North Wiltshire constituents, I will not vote on it. [Interruption.] Of course I will not. That is exactly what I am asking hon. Members to do, but the other way around. I will not vote on matters affecting purely Scotland.
Mr. Foulkes: The Scotland Act?
Mr. Gray: The Scotland Act is, of course, different because it affects the relationship between this UK Parliament and Scotland. That is a matter for the UK Parliament and a matter for me to vote on as a UK parliamentarian. If some matter came up—I cannot imagine what, because it would be quite out of order—during my parliamentary career that had absolutely no effect of any kind on England, Wales or Northern Ireland and would affect Scotland only, the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) has my absolute assurance that I would neither speak nor vote on it. I seek in return his absolute assurance that he will neither speak nor vote on any matters affecting purely England. Will he give me that assurance?
Mr. Joyce: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), who said that all Members in this House are equal. I will vote on every piece of legislation that comes before this House.
Mr. Gray: That position is, at least, clear; but I simply cannot imagine how the hon. Gentleman can answer the question of why I may not vote on similar matters in Scotland. Every Member of this House is not equal. Some Members of this House have responsibility for dealing with health, education and other such matters here in England; others do not. I can look after everything that affects my constituents, but the hon. Gentleman cannot. He apparently thinks that it is fine for him to come down here and vote on matters that affect my constituents, but I cannot vote on some matters that affect his. That seems unfair; it is a
44WH
constitutional conundrum and an outrage, which, as the people of England are now dimly beginning to realise, could ultimately have serious consequences for the Union itself.
Finally, I shall point to possible outcomes of the forthcoming general election. One is that there may be a Conservative majority for the United Kingdom but not for Scotland; another is a Labour majority for the United Kingdom but a Conservative majority here in England. That is when this question becomes particularly bitter. My constituents would have voted for a Conservative Government and would have a Conservative majority here in England but, thanks to tartan muscle from north of the border, the Labour party would continue to interfere in health, education and other matters in my constituency. That is when the West Lothian question becomes unanswerable and when the Union itself comes into question. We in this place should now try to find some sensible answer, a suitable way round the problem and some self-denying ordinance that would correct that anomaly and outrage, so that, in that event, the people of England do not turn.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: Before I call the next speaker, I should say that we have only 27 minutes before the winding-up speeches begin at 3 o'clock. Obviously, I encourage short, pertinent and relevant interventions, which might well be the way in which people who are unlikely to catch my eye can at least get a view across in the course of this important debate.
2.33 pm
Mr. Russell Brown: It is an honour and a pleasure to follow a fellow Scot, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray). I congratulate him on securing the debate on an issue that has, I suspect, been gnawing away at him for some considerable time and may well have given him sleepless nights in recent months. I recall our exchanges, which were short and curt, in the Committee considering of the Hunting Bill. However, I wonder whether we would be having this debate today if we had a Conservative Government and a large number of Conservative Members in Scotland. I suspect not.
I want to make it clear that I see myself as a citizen of the UK who is proud to be Scottish and proud to be a Member of a UK Parliament. I will strive at all times to function as a Member of that UK Parliament. Each and every one of us was elected on an equal status, and that should always be remembered.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that it is difficult to see equality between Members who have responsibility for all their constituents' interests—those who represent constituencies such as mine—and Members who have responsibility for only a limited range of interests because other Members of another Assembly have other responsibilities?
Mr. Brown: As I make my way through my contribution—I will keep it short, Sir Nicholas, and make only relevant points—I hope to bring some sort of clarity to my statement about equal status.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) mentioned the word superficial; the proposals of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire are superficially

45WH
attractive, but logically flawed. Neither Scotland nor any other part of the UK has independence; thankfully so, many of us would say. What has been embarked upon is devolution and we should stick closely to its theology. In its wisdom, Westminster has seen fit to do nothing more than devolve certain powers to Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast. This Parliament is a UK Parliament, not an English Parliament. There has been no legislation passed to create an English Parliament, for which some obviously wish. Such a position would be totally different from the constitutional arrangement that we have.
Westminster has always passed legislation that does not affect all of the UK, and to a certain extent the devolved arrangements have changed nothing. The status or basis of Westminster has not changed, nor has the role of any of its Members. We cannot approach the matter on an ad hoc basis, or we would challenge the whole basis of devolution. I respect what the hon. Member for North Wiltshire said at the start of the debate; the debate is not about devolution. However, we cannot discuss the West Lothian question or the voting rights of Scottish Members without talking about devolution.
The hon. Member for North Wiltshire proposes different classes of MPs, and not just two different classes. In my intervention I referred to the logical conclusion of his points, and to transport in London. I appreciate his point that that is not something on which the Greater London authority legislates, but he is embarking on a road that could lead to even greater difficulties than some say we have at the moment. He seems to have returned to the old in-and-out theory. In other words, he wishes to prevent Members from devolved areas from participating in the domestic business of non-devolved areas that has become a devolved matter in their own constituency. He has made that abundantly clear. Strictly speaking, such an approach could be applied to all forms of parliamentary business—not just debates and votes—such as questions and motions. My neighbour, the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) has tabled questions on issues that have been devolved, as we can see from the public record.
If the hon. Member for North Wiltshire has not already done so, I would urge him to read the excellent contribution from the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) in his opposition to the House of Commons (Reserved Matters) Bill on 28 June 2000. He lays out clearly and concisely the very issues that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire and his friends are failing to grasp in their blind fury and their wish to weaken the position of others. Let me give hon. Members a flavour of the contribution from the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon.
"Let us imagine a situation"—
the hon. Member for North Wiltshire has already alluded to this—
"where the withdrawal of Scottish MPs left a majority on English matters in the House different from that of the UK Government. One would then, necessarily, end up with a Government elected on a manifesto significant parts of which they could not deliver, and a competing Administration, unable to deliver their manifesto because they would not command the business of the House, and would therefore depend on the opportunistic hijacking of Government proposals." — [Official Report, 28 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 924.]
46WH
That is the complete and utter shambles that we could end up with.
I know that the matter of foundation hospitals has brought the matter back into the limelight, resurrecting the argument for some about the voting position of UK Members. We are all aware that, later this month, the matter of tuition fees will again bring the bitterness to the fore. I believe that the geographic location of my constituency puts me in a unique position. I shall give a topical example in relation to health service provision. If constituents in the east of my constituency in lower Annandale and in Eskdale require health service provision in the form of hospital treatment. they do not look to Dumfries and Galloway Royal infirmary, but to the Cumberland infirmary in Carlisle. I say to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues that that service provision within Cumbria is as important to me as the provision in my constituency. The border is nothing more than a line on the map; it is not a barrier, or the reconstruction of Hadrian's wall.
Mr. Peter Duncan: The hon. Gentleman accepts that the border is simply a line but that it works in both directions. There are parents in Carlisle who send their children to college in Dumfries and Galloway. Their representatives have lost the ability to legislate on, for example, tuition fees if their children were to attend Dumfries and Galloway college.
Mr. Brown: Of course. The hon. Gentleman is exactly right, but the point is that it is a border, nothing more than a line on the map. The hon. Gentleman asked the Secretary of State what percentage of elective surgery operations performed in the Cumberland infirmary related to residents of Scotland and Dumfries and Galloway in the previous 12 months. Almost 2 per cent. came from the Scottish side of the border.
To sum up, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire has done nothing more than raise the issue once again. It is a burning issue. I must make it clear to Members that my father was English. He was very proud of that and I was very proud that he was an Englishman. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon said:
"We English are not a minority in these islands; we do not have an identity to prove or a history to rescue. When a federation exists in which there is a massive disequilibrium between the size and weight of one of its components and the others, there is a particular responsibility on the dominant partner to behave with restraint.
I do not believe that the Union is at risk from Scottish nationalism if that nationalism is left to sustain its own momentum and renew its own energy, if it can; but give it the adrenalin of an assertive English nationalism against which to identify itself, and I do fear that we shall he providing the weapon for an assault on the integrity of the Union." — [Official Report, 28 June 2000; Vol. 353, c. 924.]
I urge the hon. Member for North Wiltshire to read the words of his right hon. Friend.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: I hope that if they restrict their remarks, three additional Members might catch my eye after the Member whom I intend to call next. I hope that Members accept that that is a constructive view to express at this stage.
2.43 pm
Sir George Young: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown), who made a constructive and measured response to the powerful case made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), whom I compliment on his choice of subject.
As we heard, last month, one vote on foundation hospitals was carried by the votes of Scottish Members. Yesterday, when I spoke on the Traffic Management Bill, which covers only England and Wales, I raised the question of whether it was right for Scottish colleagues to vote on that matter. Later this month the decision on top-up fees might be carried by the votes of Scottish Members, so it is right that my hon. Friend should raise the matter.
Mr. Foulkes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir George Young: I plan to observe the injunction from Sir Nicholas.
It is very appropriate that the debate should take place with you in the Chair, Sir Nicholas. In the last Parliament, the Procedure Committee, which you chair, produced a report on the procedural consequences of devolution, to which I will refer in a moment.
The present constitutional settlement is unfair and unstable. We tend to see it through our own eyes as Members of Parliament; I prefer to see it through the eyes of my constituents. The position is quite simple. Until 1998, my constituents, through their Member of Parliament, could influence policy in Scotland on health and education, and the converse was of course true. After devolution, they lost that ability to influence policy in Scotland.
Mr. Lazarowicz: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir George Young: I do not propose to give way because I hope that more Members will get in.
My advice to my constituents is to accept that devolution is a fact and that we should make it work. They are prepared to do so, but there is a consequent inequity. While they can no longer influence whether their Scottish friends have top-up fees or foundation hospitals, their Scottish friends can influence whether such policies happen in England. It is impossible to defend or explain that to my constituents. The problem is compounded by the so-called West Lothian question, whereby Scottish Members can impose top-up fees or foundation hospitals on my constituents but cannot impose those policies on their own constituents. The position is indefensible and inequitable.
What do the Government say in response? In the last Parliament, the Lord Chancellor said that the best thing to do about the West Lothian question was to stop asking it. That was not a proper response for a parliamentarian, let alone a spokesman on constitutional affairs. The Government's next line of defence is regional assemblies, but that is not an adequate response; regional assemblies do not have the same powers as the Scottish Parliament.
The Government then fall back on the indivisibility of the Member of Parliament and the impossibility of any solution that gives some MPs rights that others do not
48WH
have. We are not all equal; some hon. Members in the Chamber have a right to attend Committees that I, as an English Member, cannot attend. That is where the Procedure Committee's report on the consequences of devolution comes in. It contains a section on legislation, and students of the subject will find support from the Procedure Committee for the argument that, in the light of devolution, different procedures may be necessary for England.
Your Committee, Sir Nicholas, anticipated conflict and wisely suggested procedures for minimising it. It suggested that we change our rules by convention; in other words, not by primary legislation but by convention. If there is support for the proposition that matters that affect England only should be voted on by English MPs only, it should be done by convention rather than by legislation.
Paragraphs 25 and 26 of the report are key, and it is worth reading the relevant section in full:
"The main point of principle to be considered is whether it is appropriate to retain special procedures for bills relating exclusively to one of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom, as currently apply to Bills relating exclusively to Scotland or Wales. On balance, we believe it is. There may soon be governments of different parties in different parts of the United Kingdom; party balances already differ in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland."
That is an important section because it concedes the principle, post-devolution, of new procedures for legislation affecting England. Once that point has been conceded, English votes for English Bills is the logical conclusion.
Paragraph 28 argues that representation on Bills dealing with English legislation should be in accordance with party balance in England, not party balance in the House. The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) commented that
"As a Scottish MP, frankly I am not terribly interested in having a say over the English health budget, the way in which health policy is going or education, and all the matters over which responsibility has been devolved to Scotland, I think it right and proper that English MPs should be left to consider the equivalent legislation in England for themselves."
There speaks a Scottish Member of Parliament.
The Procedure Committee, which approved that principle unanimously, included nine Government Members; it also included the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who hopes to catch your eye later, Sir Nicholas. The principle that I am annunciating is not mine; a Committee of the House adopted it. The Committee also dealt with the argument that identifying such Bills would be an impossible burden on the Speaker by dismissing the point in paragraph 27 of the report.
How did the Government respond to the recommendation? They simply asserted in their response that
"If …it were possible to identify some Bills as relating exclusively to England, it is not clear what benefit that would have for the House."
The debate is about the West Lothian question. The argument of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire simply disappeared over the Government's head. They did not disagree with the solution; they did not think that there was a problem, which is indefensible. There is support in England for the sort of solution that my hon. Friend has outlined. I recall seeing

49WH
an opinion poll indicating that there was a majority in Scotland for the proposition that Scottish Members of Parliament should not vote on English domestic legislation.
The proposal that only English and Welsh MPs should vote on Bills covering England and Wales could work within the conventions and traditions of Parliament. It is based on precedents and would be accepted as fair in Scotland as well as in England. It represents common sense. It would deal with the English question and make the Union stronger. The Government are making a serious mistake in their response and it will fall to a different Administration to put right this constitutional error.
2.50 pm
Pete Wishart(SNP): I congratulate the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) on securing this timely and appropriate debate so early in the new year.
It comes as no surprise that the issue of the voting rights of Scottish Members is coming to a head; it is a boil that needs to be lanced. The question has been kicking around for some three decades, since the Father of the House elegantly asked why the Member for West Lothian may vote on issues to do with West Bromwich, while the Member for West Bromwich must be silent on issues concerning West Lothian. That is the West Lothian question, or WLQ, as those of us who have wrestled with it throughout the years prefer to call it.
The WLQ is back with a vengeance. Now, not only can the Member for West Lothian vote on issues of a West Bromwich nature, but the Member for West Lothian might be responsible for an outcome that has been rejected in West Bromwich and by the majority of English Members. The Government can get unpopular English legislation through only on the back of Scottish MPs. That is unfair and increasingly untenable, and the public are increasingly unhappy and perplexed about it. I reassure English Members that the Scottish public feel the same. A recent opinion poll by System 3 in The Herald showed that the Scottish public feel that it is wrong that Scottish Members should enable unpopular English legislation to get through.
Mr. Lazarowicz: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Pete Wishart: I am sorry, but I have not got much time.
Even the majority of Labour supporters feel that Scottish Members should have nothing whatever to do with unpopular English legislation. That issue is linked with the emerging consensus in England that Scottish Members should have nothing whatever to do with England-only legislation; legislation with no impact on Scotland. The Scottish Parliament has changed absolutely everything and it now time for us to consider our practices and change them where appropriate.
Mr. Bill Tynan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Pete Wishart: I am sorry, but I have not got much time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will get an opportunity to intervene.
50WH
When we raise the WLQ, Labour Members say that there should not be two different classes of Members in this House. It is time for a reality check. There are two different classes of Members in this House; there may even be more than two. There are English MPs, who have responsibility in relation to every aspect of political control in their constituency, and there are those of us for whom the Scottish Parliament is a reality in our constituencies. I am in a different class of Member from an English MP because I have no say on schools, hospitals and most of the public services in my constituency. I do, however—this is almost preposterous—have a say on schools, hospitals and public services in the constituency of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire. That is patently unfair and increasingly untenable. I am quite relaxed about being in a different class from other Members. Labour Members should get used to it. They should just accept the fact about different classes of Members and its consequences.
There is a problem with the West Lothian question. It was touched on earlier and relates to situations in which English legislation has a financially negative impact on Scotland
Mr. Lazarowicz: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Pete Wishart: I am sorry, but I want to move on.
Some issues are perfectly clear and straightforward and have nothing whatever to do with Scotland. I am thinking of matters such as that discussed as recently as yesterday. The Traffic Management Bill has nothing to do with Scotland and nothing to do with Scottish Members. Controversial legislation, such as foxhunting legislation, has nothing to do with Scotland or Scottish Members. Just before prorogation, in November, the issue of trial by jury in English courts ping-ponged between the two Houses. That was nothing whatever to do with Scotland and therefore should have had nothing whatever to do with Scottish Members.[Interruption.]
Sir Nicholas Winterton: Order. I want only the person who is supposed to be speaking to address the Chair. I do not wish other conversations to be taking place at the same time.
Pete Wishart: I am grateful, Sir Nicholas.
Mr. Connarty: It is difficult to say that legislation that covers England will not affect anyone we represent. I have just had to deal with a case in which one of my constituents—a canon from a local church—was fined under the traffic management system. It was a false claim because it was so inaccurate. We must deal with legislation that is passed by this House if it has consequences for our constituents. Must our constituents stay in Scotland and never come to England for any services?
Pete Wishart: The logical conclusion of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is to do away with all nations and all legislatures entirely.
I read on the front page of the Traffic Management Bill that it applies to England and Wales only. It is time for Members to accept that some English legislation has

51WH
a negative consequence on Scotland, the most notable being the two significant issues of top-up fees and foundation hospitals. Judgment must be used and the impact on Scotland must be assessed. The matter is straightforward for us in the Scottish National party. It is our duty to oppose any issue or legislation that has a negative impact on or consequence for Scotland. We were elected to defend and protect the Scottish interest and I make no apology for doing so when such measures come before Scotland.
On tuition fees, it is abundantly clear that university professors, academics, economists and the Scottish Parliament agree that if tuition fees are implemented in England, it will be a disaster for Scottish universities. That does not need much explanation. If the pot is increased with the introduction of tuition fees and we remain a pocket-money Parliament with an insufficient settlement, our status will be diminished. If England wants top-up fees, that is a matter for England and it is right and proper that it can go ahead and have them. But England cannot ignore the consequences for Scotland.
Thankfully, there are solutions, the first and most elegant being to give Scotland financial responsibility for its own actions and to determine its own agenda and priorities. With one sweep of the brush, we would get away from debates about the Barnett formula. It is truly remarkable that a number of Scottish Members are prepared to vote for top-up fees and foundation hospitals in the full knowledge that they will be disastrous for Scottish universities and the Scottish health service.
It is also remarkable that the one and only Scottish Conservative Member from Scotland is prepared to sit on his hands while foundation hospitals are introduced and tuition fees are discussed on Second Reading. To call himself the shadow Secretary of State and not defend the Scottish interest is remarkable; it would be laughable were it not so dangerous for Scotland.
Given that the Government are unlikely to give us financial responsibility for Scotland, let me suggest another solution, which follows on from the suggestion of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire. The Speaker could be allowed to determine whether Bills have no impact or consequence for Scotland. That could be easily achieved by extending Standing Order No. 97, which allows the Speaker to determine whether Bills affect Scotland only and are referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for Scottish consideration. It would be relatively simple to extend Standing Order No. 97 to refer Bills to the Regional Affairs Committee, which is composed solely of English Members. Let them deal with legislation that affects only England if the Speaker's Panel decides that the matter is for English Members only.
The most elegant solution of all is for Scotland to be independent and for England to be independent. People suggest to me that England could not survive as an independent nation and would not have the confidence to go forward, but I refute that; the future for an independent England would be reasonably rosy. What England does not need is further voting by Scottish Members to determine its future.
2.59 pm
Mr. John MacDougall: I shall be brief, Sir Nicholas, to allow other colleagues to speak; unlike the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart), who was reluctant to give others a chance to intervene.
There has been a serious oversight. Some people presume that their taking no decision on foundation hospitals because they are Scottish will not affect Scotland, but they agree with the Conservatives' proposal for the health service, which would affect services to the health service and British taxpayers. I do not live in that world; of course it will affect Scottish people. The cost of the alternative will impact on the taxation system, with a serious effect on the Scottish economy.
In 2000–01, out of 29.3 million taxpayers, 24.2 million lived in England and 2.49 million lived in Scotland. Any decision affecting the efficiency and delivery of a major service such as the health service has an impact on the rest of Britain. I have no right to decide for Scotland any more than the Scottish Parliament has a right to decide for here. I was not elected as a Member of the Scottish Parliament, but as a Member of the British Parliament, and I do not see myself as a Scottish MP—they are up in Holyrood—but as a British MP. So long as this House has a structure that entitles me to vote on issues that are significant not just for England but for the whole of the UK, that fact cannot be discounted.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) referred to the in-and-out situation, and talked about trying to structure a system that would accommodate a vast number of changes. In addition, the Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), made the point that it would be impossible to try to impose a structure on defence matters. On the surface, the proposals might look neat, tidy and effective, but we would run up against many problems. That would make a farce of the House of Commons and of Westminster; it would not be seen as an improvement.
My final point is that, while I note that five Members of this House believe that Scotland should be independent, we should remind ourselves why the Scottish Parliament came into existence; 18 years of decisions taken down here that affected Scotland. Now, Conservatives in Scotland with a seat in its Parliament are discredited because of decisions taken at that time. Nobody was rushing about then to set up a Scottish Parliament or to help out the Scots.
A range of issues needs to be addressed. If these are its proposals, the Conservative and Unionist party should think about dropping the word "Unionist". We should also consider that a way to bring balance to the situation is to give English MPs the opportunity to decide whether they want the same decision-making rights in this House that every other Member has. If colleagues want to set up an English Grand Committee, just as there is a Scottish Grand Committee, to review such matters, that should be considered. I do not see the suggestions that have been made today as a solution to the problem; I see them as a bit of mischief. They would cause many more problems than they would resolve.
3.3 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Central Fife (Mr. MacDougall) because he has got to the heart of the matter. I was elected as a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament. I am extremely proud as a Cornishman—a fellow Celt—to represent North Cornwall. As it stands—if we want to change things, we have to change the whole constitution—we are all Members of the United Kingdom Parliament. I do not say that on my own behalf alone; I say it with good historical reference.
"Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but Parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a Member of Parliament."
So here we have Conservatives tearing up the political philosophy on which their party is based; the quote I just gave was from Edmund Burke in his address to the electors of Bristol in November 1774.
Sir Nicholas, you are a respected maintainer of the traditions of this House. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) on having introduced the debate; it is important for the matter to be brought into the open. However, the solutions that have been suggested are totally inappropriate.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: Does my hon. Friend share my frustration that, on the one hand, Labour Members such as the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) argue against the logic of devolution by seeking to interfere on domestic matters on the other side of a line on a map while, on the other hand, Conservative Members introduce arguments that would undermine the integrity of the United Kingdom Parliament? Would not the logical conclusion be to offer to the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland the same benefits of devolution that we enjoy in Scotland? That would ultimately lead to a federal system.
Mr. Tyler: Not surprisingly, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and I am sorry that he has not had the opportunity to contribute to the debate. In a moment I shall develop the precise argument to which he alludes. The arguments that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire advanced would apply to a different degree, I accept, to Welsh Members of this Parliament; or, to put it differently, Members elected by Welsh electors to the United Kingdom Parliament. What about London Members of Parliament or Northern Ireland Members? The arguments will apply to them, as has already been said.
I am particularly interested in Northern Ireland. My memory goes back some way, and I seem to recall that, in 1979, the then Leader of the Conservative party used the votes of Ulster Members of Parliament to bring down the then Labour Government, although there was a measure of devolution to Stormont in those days. [HoN. MEMBERS: "And the Scottish nationalists."] And the nationalists. In those days, my party and I were
54WH
proud to be part of the United Kingdom Parliament, but are the Conservatives now saying that there are different gradations and that some people are half Members of Parliament and some are one-third Members of Parliament? Perhaps the Ulster Unionists in 1979 were two-thirds Members of Parliament. Were their votes to be counted in only that way? What fun for the accountants. How ridiculous.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Tyler: No, I am trying to make rapid progress because it is important for other Members to get in before we conclude.
The same has been true throughout Conservative Governments. The Conservatives have not faced such issues honestly because it served them well to use all the votes that they could lay their hands on to maintain themselves in government. When they had a small majority they were very keen to do that.
Sir George Young: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Tyler: The right hon. Gentleman must contain himself. I need to make progress.
It is surely only because Scotland is now, to all intents and purposes, and with the odd honourable exception, a Tory-free zone that the Conservatives have suddenly discovered this problem. I am delighted that they have accepted devolution, but they have not accepted the principle that devolution to some parts of the United Kingdom—as my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) rightly said—must lead us on to a proper federal constitution for this country. Conservatives say that they do not want a written constitution, but we have half a written constitution already. There have been 27 Acts of Parliament since 1997—I have them listed here, but I shall not read them out—that change the constitution of the United Kingdom. What we do not have is any comprehensive framework into which they fit.
The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) was right to say that we are in a process and we should recognise that. We should not fiddle around with the arrangements in the House of Commons to deal with it, but ensure that the momentum continues so that we end up with not only a written constitution, but one that is fit for the 21st century.
In that context, clearly we have to have certain principles. One is the need to ensure that there is subsidiarity. It is a very ugly word, which John Major invented, but the concept is a good one; that decisions should be taken as closely as possible to the people whom they affect. That has now been put in statute by the Scotland Act 1998, the Government of Wales Act 1998 and the Greater London Authority Act 1999, but it is not there for other parts of the United Kingdom.
We in Cornwall are waiting our turn. We are patient, modest people and we will get that one day. But a complete written constitution and a federal basis will take some time, and it would he absurd to play around with the procedures of the House of Commons before we reach that point. As it stands at the moment, as the

55WH
hon. Member for Central Fife rightly said, all of us here—every single one of us—were elected at the 2001 election as Members of the British Parliament, not Members of the English Parliament or half-time Members of the British Parliament. We were not elected Members of the Scottish Parliament—a good point that was made earlier—so we were not elected to second-guess what happens in the Scottish Parliament.
Pete Wishart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Tyler: No, I am coming to my conclusion because I want to be within my time.
The proposal is a short-sighted, self-interested attempt to turn the Burkean principle on its head. It is due not to the fact that the Conservatives have undertaken a careful analysis of the constitutional inadequacies that have changed things over those 200 years in Britain, but to the fact that they do not have the votes north of the border. That is the simple fact; let us be honest and come out with it. They never had the problem until they lost all their seats in Scotland; indeed, they never even saw the problem.
I am grateful for the opportunity to advance the case for an effective delineation of responsibilities within our constitution, a federal constitution. We are half way there already. The F-word is there already in Britain and we should recognise the fact. We should go further and ensure that we have a comprehensive analysis of how best to incorporate subsidiarity at all levels of the British constitution, to the benefit of all our constituents.
I was interested in the thoughtful speech by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire and hope that he will have some effect on his Front Bench. The public both need and deserve a proper blueprint of accountability. That is what a constitution should do and that is what we need. When we have it, we can deal with the problem and many others besides.
3.11 pm
Mr. Peter Duncan: I am delighted to respond to this debate; such a huge turnout of Scottish Members so soon after Hogmanay is truly remarkable. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) on bringing forward this debate. Whichever side of the debate one happens to be on, it is a debate that must be had. There is a constitutional issue that we must discuss, and this strikes me as a positive and helpful way of doing so. We have heard some helpful contributions, particularly from my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young).
The locus of the debate, as has rightly been said, is neither Scottish MPs and Scotland, nor England and English MPs; rather, it is the future of our United Kingdom. In response to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown), I say that I am very much a unionist. I believe in the success of the United Kingdom. I want it to continue, I want it to be stable and I want it to work. That is why I want us to address the problem today, as well as the West Lothian question, which was raised so long ago.
56WH
The fundamental issue is that many hon. Members, particularly Labour Back Benchers, want to have their cake and eat it. They argued for devolution in the late 1990s, when, as I accept, we were against it. However, the Scottish people want devolution and that is their settled will. We must now go forward and complete the process of devolution, of which this debate is a part.
We are addressing some parts of completing devolution; I am delighted that the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament is to be reduced from 72 to 59. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire rightly said that there were too many politicians in Scotland, and I have been using that line for many months now. There are too many MPs in Scotland and we are overrepresented. We needed 72 Members of Parliament because of the different legal system in Scotland, so, proportionately, we needed more to get that legislative programme through. The number was right then, but it is wrong now. It is time for the Government to make a clear statement that they intend to implement the boundary commission's proposals before the next general election, and to do so without any further delay.
Why has the issue been brought into focus today? The reason is recent rebellions by Labour Back Benchers, which have tightened the electoral balance. On issues such as foundation hospitals, the West Lothian question has actually made a difference for the first time in many a long year. The Labour party in Scotland is fundamentally opposed to foundation hospitals and yet, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire pointed out, many Members saw fit to troop through the Lobby as Tony's lapdogs; lobby fodder, as many papers characterised them. It is not acceptable for English legislation to be forced on the English electorate by Scottish Members of Parliament who do not have to answer for that legislation. I remind hon. Members that in that vote Scottish Members were proportionally more loyal to the Government than English Members were. I wonder why that might be. Could it be that they do not have to answer to their electorates for the policy?
The next crisis will be top-up fees; the higher education Bill will be the next potential constitutional outrage, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) pointed out in a recent debate. The Government face the prospect of being saved from electoral disaster by Members of Parliament from Scotland.
It has already been suggested that the Bill will have a cross-border effect. The hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) is on record as saying that it will have a substantial cross-border effect in higher education. I accept that wholeheartedly, but English Members of Parliament were not able to vote on the question of tuition fees when it came before the Scottish Parliament. That is the fundamental issue. If the Bill has no legislative, non-devolved effect, I shall vote. However, even though that seems unlikely, I shall not "sit on my hands", as the hon. Gentleman put it. Instead, I shall actively campaign for all Labour Members of Parliament in Scotland not to vote, so that we do not inflict that disastrous legislation on English students.
Mr. Russell Brown: The hon. Gentleman clearly stated in a press release that he would not be voting on that Bill. However, in the same press release he said that

57WH
when the vote on top-up fees came around, Scottish MPs would have to decide whether to vote in the interests of their constituents. Will he not be neglecting the interests of his constituents, keeping in mind the fact that he fully supports the Crichton campus in Dumfries and Galloway? There will be a knock-on effect, yet he says that he will sit on his hands and not vote.
Mr. Duncan: I am happy to confirm that. The hon. Gentleman knows of my support for the Crichton campus. However, he must accept that devolution has changed the United Kingdom. If I were a parent in Scotland sending my child to an English university, I would not be able to influence top-up tuition fee policy in England; but England does not have the legislative ability to effect the same policy in Scotland. That is the crisis. Labour Members are refuseniks; they refuse to accept that a problem exists, because it is in their electoral interests to do so.
Mr. Bill Tynan: Will the hon. Gentleman explain his position on the views of his hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), who has indicated a nationalist position on the structure of Parliament, and whether being a Westminster MP is the same as being an English nationalist MP?
Mr. Duncan: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I made it clear that I am a Unionist Member of Parliament. I represent my constituents. I will continue to participate in all legislation that is not devolved to the Scottish Parliament. I accept that devolution has changed the United Kingdom, but the hon. Gentleman and other Labour Members refuse to do so.
I was interested also in the reference to my ability to scrutinise the Government. I fully participate in early-day motions, and I make contributions in the Chamber. However, I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire. If I feel the need to contribute to the debate on top-up fees, illustrating my point with a Scottish example, I would feel free to convey that point of view. But I believe that it is fundamentally wrong to participate in debates on legislation that is devolved to the Scottish Parliament.
The right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), who has left the Chamber, pointed out the difficulty that some Bills are only partially devolved. That is why my hon. Friends pointed out that it is possible to introduce a certification process to identify which Bills are effective in Scotland and which are not. For myself, if a Bill contains any provision that is not devolved, I shall participate on Second and Third Reading but I will not participate in debates on amendments about matters that are not devolved. That position is understood by the Scottish electorate, as was made clear in a poll run by The Herald, in which a majority said that they would be supportive of Scottish Members of Parliament not taking part in such debates.
The solution is absolutely clear. Devolution needs stability to succeed. We in the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party have accepted that devolution is the will of the Scottish people, and that it needs to work. The only alternative is the destructive nationalist solution.
58WH
If every Bill were certified by the Speaker, we could ensure that Scottish MPs' participation was transparent. It is possible to establish by convention that Scottish MPs will not participate, and the next Conservative Government will act accordingly if they are unable to establish a consensus. The Scottish nationalist position is untenable. They have effectively established a procedure whereby they will only vote in English matters that will cost the English taxpayer more because they will provide more money to the Scottish Executive. That is unethical, unjustified and unstable.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) originally set out his argument in his book, "Devolution: The End of Britain?" I disagree with his thesis. I believe that devolution can work and need not be the end of the United Kingdom, but we need to address the difficult issues that are part of devolution, not just the easy ones.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: Before the Minister responds, I thank Members for their co-operation. So far, this has been a lively, interesting and entertaining debate.
3.21 pm
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Phil Woolas): I hope that it continues to be a lively and interesting debate, Sir Nicholas.
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) on raising this issue, and take this opportunity to congratulate him on his recent prize from the Royal College of Defence Studies for his thesis on "Crown vs Parliament: Who Decides on Going to War". His interest in constitutional issues is longstanding. I see from his website that he wants "a fair deal on the Constitution" and "a stronger, more authoritative Parliament".
That is the end of the compliments; I now move on to the hon. Gentleman's argument. He is attempting, either intentionally or unintentionally, to send out a message to the country that the Labour party does not have a majority of seats in England. In fact, it has an overwhelming majority of the seats in England; we control 323 out of 529. The conclusion that Labour Members in Scotland are imposing anything on the English people should not be drawn from this debate. The English people voted Labour, as did the Scottish people.
Mr. Gray: That being the case, I presume that he is quite content for there to be English votes on English matters.
Mr. Woolas: I am surprised that a Conservative Member who has always, I understand, adhered to the idea that a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament should put country first, constituency second and party third, should attempt to turn that on its head. The consequence of his argument would be a breakdown of the power of this Parliament's sovereignty. It is interesting that he should do that at this juncture.
The hon. Gentleman's argument misunderstands the role of the Member of Parliament. We are not here just as representatives of our constituencies on some sort of delegative or representative basis, but to make

59WH
judgments and take decisions on behalf of the whole of the UK. To accept the logic of his argument is to say that I, as a Member based in Greater Manchester, should have no say on, for example, the future of airports in south-east England; yet the future of Heathrow airport has a direct and important bearing on my constituency. The idea that we should have two levels of Members of Parliament with different status and powers would fundamentally undermine the power of this sovereign Parliament.
John Robertson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most worrying aspect of this matter is the rise of English nationalism, with the support of Scottish and Welsh nationalism, and that we now have only one unionist party in the House, the Labour party?
Mr. Woolas: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the Labour party is upholding parliamentary sovereignty and democracy. I do not believe that it is the intention of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire to engage in English nationalism.
In a very thoughtful speech, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) quoted the Procedure Committee. I should bring to the attention of the House the conclusion of its report in May 1999, which said that it was undesirable to have Members with different roles, different responsibilities and different rights in this Parliament. The Government agree, and to go down that road would lead to disaster in the long term.
It is said that real power can only be taken, not given. The lesson of devolution diminishes the truth of that remark. This sovereign Parliament, representative of the people of the whole of the United Kingdom, gave the decision about whether the Scottish people would choose devolution. In September 1997, they chose devolution, not just after 18 years of imposition from a Conservative majority representing England, not just after 30 years of the West Lothian question, a phrase that I think was first coined by Enoch Powell in that debate, but after 300 years of a United Kingdom settlement.
The Act of Union of 1707 gave Scotland 45 seats in the new 558-seat Parliament of what was then Great Britain. The idea of Scotland being put upon by England is not a recent phenomenon; it has been around since 1707.
60WH
In the referendum decision, in which all Members of Parliament took part, whether or not their point of view prevailed, the settlement of the United Kingdom shifted. Today, Conservative Members—not accepting the consequences of devolution—are trying to rewrite the arithmetic of the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom. The arguments are new and opportunistic, and they were not heard when the Conservatives were in government.
Power was given and the Government recognise that that has presented a debate and anomalies. There are anomalies within the United Kingdom; we are a kingdom of nations. There will always be anomalies where there is the United Kingdom. The conservative thinker, Ferdinand Mount, criticised the Conservatives with two valid points. He said:
"MPs are constantly voting on Bills which do not apply to them or their constituents. Membership of any political community entails acceptance of its anomalies."
Some anomalies could be corrected, but he also said that
"other anomalies follow from the uneven asymmetrical nature of all existing society and so must be endured; the maturity of our political culture is to be measured very largely by the extent to which this is understood."
John Major described the proposal as one that would lead to constitutional chaos because of the nature of the United Kingdom, where we have a nation within a nation, Scotland. It is no good the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) saying that the Scottish people have not had a say in the matter. The Scottish people took a decision for devolution in the knowledge that it would lead to what the hon. Member for North Wiltshire sees as an anomaly. That is the nature of our United Kingdom.
The Government will not listen to what we consider to be a bogus argument from the hon. Member for North Wiltshire. The bottom line is; are hon. Members equal? Yes, they are. Does the party able to command a majority in Parliament form the Executive? Yes, it does. The logical consequence of his position is that we would have a legislature where there was a majority of one party in England different from the majority in Scotland, as was the case between 1974 and 1976. That would lead to Executive power being held in England by one party and Executive power being held in Scotland by another. That is why we have strange bedfellows, with the independence party in Scotland coming together with what is supposedly the Conservative and Unionist party. I reject the proposition of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire and I would ask the House to reject it totally.

Project ISOLUS
3.30 pm
Mr. Alan Reid: I am pleased to have the opportunity to introduce a debate today on this important subject. The acronym ISOLUS stands for interim storage of laid-up submarines. The purpose of the project is to reach a conclusion on how to dispose of our old, decommissioned nuclear submarines.
In days gone by, the Navy took a much simpler approach. Decommissioning old equipment or ammunition was often simply a case of sailing out to sea and tossing the ammunition over the side of the ship. The principle out of sight, out of mind, clearly applied. Fortunately, these days we are much more concerned about the environment.
The Ministry of Defence has 27 nuclear-powered submarines, 16 of which are in service and 11 of which have already been taken out of service. The spent nuclear fuel is removed from the reactors when the submarines are taken out of service. However, that still leaves the reactor compartment, which contains radioactive materials and other toxic substances. The 11 submarines that have been taken out of service are stored afloat. Seven are stored at Rosyth and four at Devonport. Afloat storage uses the structure of the submarine and its reactor compartment as a means of containing the radioactive waste, so shielding the outside world from the radiation.
Obviously, the crew lived in the submarine when it was in service, so there is no doubt that the reactor compartment safely contains the radiation. The submarines are therefore clearly safe afloat. By 2012, however, a sizeable number of other submarines will have come out of service and there will no longer be space at the existing berths to store them afloat. Berthing space is available at No. 4 basin in Devonport as a possible option if the afloat storage policy must continue after 2012. That basin has the capacity to store another 11 vessels, which would provide afloat storage space until 2037.
When the submarines were conceived, the Government of the day, back in the 1950s, planned to dispose of them according to the traditional out of sight, out of mind principle. That meant taking the submarines out to the Atlantic and scuttling them. By 1993, however, the possibility of dumping them at sea was finally ruled out by the London dumping convention, which prohibits the dumping at sea of radioactive material.
Before the first nuclear submarines were decommissioned, the MOD had adopted a policy of temporary afloat storage at Rosyth and Devonport. It anticipated final disposal in an underground deep-waster repository. In 1997, however, the Nirex proposal for an underground laboratory in Cumbria to prepare for a national repository was rejected. That decision, and the prospect of running out of berths for the decommissioned submarines, led to the ISOLUS project. The MOD commissioned Lancaster university to carry out a consultation exercise.
The first stage in any disposal process involves removing the reactor compartment from the submarine. The rest of the submarine is safe and can be broken up
62WH
for scrap. There are then two options, one of which is to store the reactor compartment intact until most of the radioactivity has decayed, which is estimated to take about 60 years. The French and United States Governments have chosen that option. It is important to note that the reactor compartment is very large. It is about the size of two double-decker buses, so transporting it to a storage site would clearly be cumbersome and would also require a large burial chamber. That is the disadvantage of that option, but it has the advantage that it avoids any risks involved in opening up the reactor compartment, so that there is no danger of the radiation getting out into the atmosphere.
The second option is to go further after removing the reactor compartment from the submarine: to break it open and to separate it into free release material, low-level radioactive waste and intermediate-level radioactive waste. The intermediate-level waste causes the main problem. It has to be securely packaged and then stored in a secure facility.
Four companies have submitted proposals that are being investigated by Lancaster university as part of the consultation project. I believe that the consultation is too restrictive, because it is based simply on the proposals put forward by the private sector. In addition to considering the proposals put forward by the private sector, the Government should themselves be researching the safest and most environmentally friendly solution. A fifth company had also submitted a proposal. Its intention had been to break up the submarines at Ardyne Point, in my constituency, but it quickly pulled out after a public outcry.
It should also be noted that one of the other options originally proposed breaking up the submarines at Nigg, in Easter Ross. However, the owners of that yard also quickly pulled out after a public outcry. It is clear that the private sector is wary of getting involved in the nuclear decommissioning business.
It is also obvious that the private sector is driven by its commercial interests. The operators of two of the dockyards where submarines are laid up—Babcock at Rosyth and Devonport Management Ltd. at Devonport—have both put forward proposals. However, it is clear that their main commercial interest is getting the submarines moved away from their existing sites at Devonport and Rosyth.
I want briefly to consider DML's proposal. In its submission, DML notes that it has the skilled work force to carry out the work, but it also notes that the dockyard is close to residential areas. DML therefore proposes to cut out the reactor components and to transport them to another site for storage. It wants to remove them to a site that is
"remote from residential and commercial areas".
The chosen site is a long way from Devonport, at Dounreay on the north coast of Scotland. Again, the old out of sight, out of mind principle seems to be coming to the fore. It is important to bear it in mind that such a proposal involves carrying the large, cumbersome reactor compartments with the radioactive waste inside. They would have to be carried on the long journey from the south coast of England to the north coast of Scotland.
One of the other submissions is from Babcock, which operates the dockyard at Rosyth. Babcock makes it clear that it wants rid of the submarines from Rosyth as

63WH
quickly as possible. It has also refused to allow the radioactive waste to be stored on site at Rosyth, either within the intact reactor components or as packaged radioactive waste. Babcock gave local public concern as one reason for that. However, Babcock does not seem to be bothered that there might also be public concern in the part of the country where the waste ends up.
Clearly both DML and Babcock are acting in their commercial interests. They have been happy to accept work from the MOD that has involved dealing with nuclear material, but as soon as they see no more commercial benefit they want rid of the submarines and the waste, and they want to send them as far away as they can.
Babcock has suggested Sellafield or Coulport as possible locations for storing the packaged intermediate-level radioactive waste. Coulport is on the east side of Loch Long. It is not in my constituency, but the west side of the loch is and the villagers on the west side—in Ardentinny, Strone and Blairmore—are extremely concerned at the suggestion of using Coulport to store that radioactive waste. The waste would be stored in large sheds, built on the hillside, and my constituents are naturally concerned at the prospect of large sheds of radioactive waste being sited just across the loch from their homes.
David Cairns: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for indicating in advance that he would accept an intervention. I understand the concerns that his constituents have, but is it not incumbent on us as Members of Parliament to remind everyone that we have had nuclear facilities on the Clyde for many years, in a generating capacity and in a defence capability? Thanks to strict safety and security protocols, as well as the excellence of the workers, many of whom are our constituents, we have not had any incidents. While we recognise that there are concerns, we must also say that we have a long history of dealing with nuclear materials very safely in this country.
Mr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I want to stress that I am not arguing against the presence of the existing nuclear base at Faslane or the royal naval armaments depot at Coulport. I was planning, as I developed my argument, to point out that Coulport does not act as a store for radioactive waste.
The 2002 inventory of radioactive waste published by Nirex lists only 1 cu m of radioactive waste having been produced at Coulport, whereas the proposal from Babcock would involve thousands of cubic metres of radioactive waste being stored in large sheds. Although nuclear submarines visit Coulport, and rearmament takes place there, there are not large stores of radioactive waste. This is a different proposal altogether. The building of such large sheds on the hillside and the storage of radioactive waste for long periods are cause for concern.
I do not see the argument for taking radioactive waste to a site that is not used as a store for radioactive waste. Managing radioactive waste and storing it safely involve problems. If the waste is to be moved, I would suggest that it should be moved to a site that has experience of
64WH
managing large quantities of radioactive waste. It should not be taken to a new site. Coulport is on the edge of the new Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park, where tourism is being encouraged. I do not think that constructing large sheds to store radioactive waste will encourage tourism in the area.
There was a very rowdy public meeting in the village of Strone as part of the consultation exercise. Babcock's representative was asked why the radioactive waste could not be stored safely at Rosyth, where the submarines would be broken up. One of the principles of the civil nuclear power programme is that the waste from civil nuclear power stations is stored on site. Storing at Rosyth would avoid the hazards of transporting the waste to Coulport. Babcock's answer was that the radioactive waste could not be stored at Rosyth. However, after further questioning, it appeared that "would not" was more accurate than "could not".
It certainly was my impression, and that of those at the meeting, that Babcock's view that the waste could not be stored at Rosyth was not based on any belief that storage there would be unsafe, or on a lack of storage capacity, but on the ground that the Government had already agreed with Babcock that the submarines and all the waste would be moved from Rosyth. I ask the Minister to let the House know whether an agreement between the Government and Babcock exists to the effect that the submarines and all the waste will be removed from Rosyth.
There are several possible solutions. One, in the intermediate term, is to continue with afloat storage. The No. 4 basin at Devonport would provide enough storage space until 2037. That would give more time to research a solution. Another option is to break up the submarines and store the reactor components intact at the sites where they are currently berthed. Another possibility is to break up the reactor components and either store the packaged waste at the sites where the submarines are berthed or transport the packaged waste to another site where radioactive waste is stored and managed. There could be other options. One that should be firmly ruled out is using sites where radioactive waste is not currently stored. That simply adds to the job of managing and guarding the radioactive waste.
By restricting the consultations to private sector schemes, the MOD will not necessarily find the best solution. The private sector is either wary of getting involved, as the experiences of the owners of the yards at Nigg and Ardyne Point demonstrated, or has its own agenda, such as in respect of Babcock and DML, which simply want the submarines and the waste away from their own yards. The Government should investigate and identify the safest and most environmentally friendly solution. The private sector could then be asked to implement the selected scheme.
Another important point is that the MOD should not act in isolation from the rest of the Government. The radioactive waste generated by the MOD is only a tiny fraction of the radioactive waste in the country, most of which comes from civil nuclear power stations. The ISOLUS exercise should not stand for isolation. The project should not be isolated from the civil decommissioning programme, but integrated in it. The recently published Energy Bill provides for the

65WH
establishment of a national decommissioning authority. That authority will be the correct body to oversee the decommissioning of all nuclear waste in the country.
In conclusion, the way forward is for Project ISOLUS to be taken over by the new NDA. MOD waste should be disposed of as part of a national strategy, not dealt with by the MOD in isolation.
3.46 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): I congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) on securing this debate on Project ISOLUS. I hope that you have not had a surfeit of Scottish accents in this debate and the preceding debate, Sir Nicholas. The earlier debate was illuminating, and it shows the strength of the UK Parliament when Scottish Members debate matters that are important for the UK.
Project ISOLUS embraces a commitment to consult widely and to follow best practice. As the hon. Gentleman said, an independent institution, Lancaster university, was appointed to formulate and run the consultation process. As a result, we have asked the public to review the outline ideas put forward by Lancaster university. The process is up-front and transparent, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises and welcomes that.
Of course, the hon. Gentleman raises understandable and legitimate concerns, which I shall address later. However, I would first like to set out the background to the project. Britain's nuclear submarines have patrolled the world for more than 40 years, and they are a potent and effective force that is central to our country's defence. As well as the ability to strike against ships and submarines and to support land operations, the Vanguard class ensures that our policy of nuclear deterrence is met. However, as those submarines come to the end of their life, we owe it to future generations to ensure that we can safely store them until a national radioactive waste management policy is finalised.
As the hon. Gentleman said, 11 redundant nuclear submarines are stored afloat—seven at Rosyth and four at Devonport. For some 20 years, that has been proved to be safe and it continues to be so. All those submarines have been de-fuelled, with all the highly radioactive material removed to secure storage by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. at Sellafield in Cumbria.
I stress this important point: Project ISOLUS is not concerned with reactor fuel or high-level radioactive waste. There has been too much misreporting and misunderstanding on that point, and I hope that this debate helps to set the record straight. The submarines, minus their fuel, are regularly inspected and maintained. The residual irradiated steel in the submarine's reactor plant compartment is classified as intermediate level waste and must be managed accordingly. It is contained within the hull, and the robust shielding ensures that radioactivity on the outside of the submarine is so small that it is not measurable against normal background radiation levels. Indeed, standing outside the hull of one of those de-fuelled submarines continuously for 20 days has a similar effect to flying to California once. Leaving the irradiated steel within submarines stored afloat is therefore very safe. It presents no direct hazard to the work force, general public or surrounding environment.
Under current plans, however, a further 16 nuclear submarines will be withdrawn from service and de-fuelled over the coming years and the availability of
66WH
suitable space is heavily constrained. We are committed to not adding to the seven submarines stored at Rosyth, and the basin space at Devonport will be used up by 2012. The hon. Gentleman referred to the additional basin at Devonport as though his solution were to impose the matter somewhere else in the country away from his area. However, the additional basin is tidal and is therefore not suitable.
With sea dumping not being an option, alternative long-term interim storage must be found. That is why we have instituted Project ISOLUS. I emphasise that we are seeking a suitable interim arrangement, which does not prejudge the options for a national radioactive waste management policy being considered by the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the devolved Administrations. That will no doubt be debated in the course of the progress through the House of the Energy Bill.
It will be some years before that policy is set. Because we face physical storage pressures, we have to act in advance of it. What we are doing is necessary, sensible and transparent. There is no hidden agenda, as some would have us believe. In 1998, the Government approved phase 1 of ISOLUS to look at alternatives to storage afloat. We concluded that intermediate level waste—either within a complete reactor plant compartment or reduced to packaged waste—provided the best overall interim solution. Storing whole submarines on land is not viable; they are far too big and difficult to move any distance when out of the water.
Following expressions of interest from industry during 2000, five outline commercial and technical proposals were received in May of last year, one of which was subsequently withdrawn. The proposals are not exhaustive and other options could arise. In addition, the industry continues to develop and refine ideas. Storing the reactor compartments complete, with the irradiated steel contained within them, has its merits, but the compartments are large, as the hon. Gentleman said.
Cutting up the reactor compartments and packaging the irradiated steel within them makes transportation easier and reduces the storage space required, but requires additional measures to ensure that the work is undertaken safely. Either route must, of course, be underwritten by appropriate safety cases and secure the approval of the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate. The agreement of the Environment Agency or the Scottish Environment Protection Agency must also be obtained if radioactive discharges are involved.
We retain an open mind on a way forward. No decision has been taken, nor will one be taken for some three years, during which there will be another period of public consultation. We have made it clear throughout that public consultation is an important aspect of the ISOLUS project and I will describe how we are going about it. The first of the three planned consultation rounds took place in 2001. The front-end consultation, as it was known, was conducted by Lancaster university, and 65 recommendations were put forward to the Ministry of Defence, covering a variety of issues that the public believed should be considered further.
One of the recommendations supported the decision to discontinue afloat storage; we have embraced that and all the others except one. We have clearly set out

67WH
why we are unable to accept that particular recommendation. Key among the recommendations accepted were the continuation of a policy of openness and trust with the public and that nuclear and environmental safety is paramount.
Linda Gilroy: I agree strongly with my right hon. Friend that the safety of our constituents must be paramount. He will know that Labour Members have taken a keen interest in the issue since the beginning of the consultation and, were it not for the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) is on a Select Committee visit, she would also be here today. We are shortly to have a meeting with our colleague in the other place about it. Would he also agree that it is important that the agencies not only protect our constituents' safety, but that they are seen to do so, and would he give his commitment to making sure that in the final stages of the consultation that commitment is clear and open, as we would all like it to be?
Mr. Ingram: I think that I can give those guarantees. I know that my hon. Friend has been closely engaged in the matter. She has followed it not only because of her constituents' interest but because she is interested in the subject as well. I understand that, with my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire), she will be meeting my noble Friend Lord Bach, who has direct responsibility for the matter, and I am sure that the issues that she has just raised will be discussed. The need to guarantee public safety remains a high priority, and the agencies that are involved also become important players in both the process of consultation and the final determination. Their views will have a significant impact on any decision. I completely take on board my hon. Friend's point.
For the latest round of consultation, we again engaged Lancaster university to advise on and run the process, and my noble Friend Lord Bach wrote to all those hon. Members whose constituencies would be involved, offering informal meetings in advance of the formal consultations. I understand that several, including the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute, took him up on his offer. Lancaster university organised public events in consultation with local authorities in all the areas that could be affected by the industry's proposals. The hon. Gentleman referred to the stormy meeting in Strone. It is always stormy in Strone. However, as I want it to do well with tourism, I had better say that it is very sunny on occasion as well.
Clearly, the meetings generated a great deal of public debate. Part of the underlying drive of Project ISOLUS was to initiate such debate. That we asked the public to review outline ideas did lead to some misunderstanding, which allowed ill-informed views to gain currency. For example, there were suggestions that a decision had already been taken on how and where the defuelled submarines would be processed and where the waste from the reactor compartment would be stored. I assure the House that that is not the case. No decisions have been made. We are still consulting on and considering the options.
David Cairns: If the ongoing consideration of the options is because of the problem with lack of space at
68WH
Rosyth, I have what I hope is a helpful suggestion for the Minister. Instead of assembling the aircraft carriers, which would take a huge amount of space, in Rosyth, would it not be better to assemble them at the infinitely superior dry dock at Greenock, thereby freeing up space at Rosyth to restore submarines in the future?
Mr. Ingram: My hon. Friend, who also takes a very close interest in the matter, should just keep arguing away. He may get a Christmas present. Who knows? That will depend on the quality of the argument, not on the relationship that he has drawn. If we build warships, we must build them through quality, not because of displacing effort elsewhere. As he well knows, we have not come to a final conclusion as to where all the construction for our warship programme will take place. That is why I advise him to keep the pressure on. He is very good at that.
We have learned lessons from the consultation exercise and have received useful proposals on how the process can be improved. They will be taken forward in the next consultation, and we expect them to be incorporated in the proposals of whatever organisation is selected to advise on, and run, the process for us.
Where does the project go from here? Lancaster university is analysing the outcome of the latest consultations with the intention of issuing a report and recommendations to which the Ministry of Defence will formally respond. As with the front-end consultation, both the Lancaster university report and our response to it will be made public. That should happen in the early part of next year. As I made clear earlier, there may be refinement of, and revision to, the existing bids, or a new option may emerge. If it has merit, we will undertake further public consultation.
We have been criticised for appearing to let industry drive the debate. Again, that is not the case. The expertise and skills required in dismantling submarines and storing the radioactive waste lie in the private sector, and its involvement is essential if that is to be successful. The form that the relationship will take is still being decided, but it is clear that a close partnership will be needed between the MOD and the contractor. The procurement strategies under consideration for the final stage are private finance initiative, partnering and prime contracting. Of course, the input of industrial expertise is essential.
Informed by the public consultation, we will complete our evaluation of the outline proposals and determine which ones warrant further development. The selected companies will then be invited to begin more detailed negotiations, which are expected to last some three years, during which the Ministry and the companies will work together to develop the proposed solutions in greater detail. At the end of that process and following a further round of public consultation, a preferred bidder, storage solution and site will be announced.
We must deal with this complex issue. We are doing so in a constructive, open and careful way. I hope that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute is prepared to recognise that such matters of national importance cannot be driven by the narrow perspective of "not in my backyard".

Combined Heat and Power
4 pm
Jane Griffiths: I have been seeking to introduce this debate since visiting the technology centre, located in Peterborough, of a Reading company, MicroGen Energy. I am therefore pleased to have secured today's discussion on this important topic.
Mrs. Helen Clark: Peterborough, as is well known, is one of only four environment cities in the country, so it is very appropriate that the facility for this technology is based in the city and in its environs, in the constituency represented by the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney). Does my hon. Friend think that Government assistance for this technology could help the United Kingdom to become a world leader and develop a UK lead in the manufacture of this boiler? I am very grateful to MicroGen for allowing my hon. Friend and me to visit the centre.
Jane Griffiths: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and for helping to arrange the visit to the site close to Peterborough. I believe that the UK could become a world leader in the manufacture of this technology, and I shall return to that.
The Government have accepted that human beings and their activities have an impact on our environment. An increasing number of Government policies have been introduced with the aim of reducing our impact on our climate and achieving our Kyoto targets for reductions in CO2 emissions. I must say, with some disappointment, that what the Government have done has not always been in harmony with those targets. I refer to the subject of previous debates and the purchase of air conditioning systems. Numerous Departments, including the Treasury, have installed air conditioning units during recent building projects that are contrary to the Government's own climate change policy. I make no apology for taking the opportunity to raise that matter when a Treasury Minister was able to respond to me in person.
To give credit to the Treasury, however, a number of measures have been introduced to help to influence people's behaviour towards activities that do not encourage climate change, and away from those that cause it. Those include the climate change levy, the emissions trading scheme and the use of taxes on road transport, which is where the emission of climate change gasses is growing most quickly. However, I must say, by the by, that I am disappointed that the fuel duty escalator was abandoned some considerable time ago, and I would like to ask the Minister whether that, or something similar, could be reintroduced in the next Budget or in the near future. Perhaps I digress.
The urgency with which we must deal with this problem is shown by just two pieces of evidence of the impact that we are having on the environment: four of the five warmest years recorded in England since records began in 1772 were after 1990, and a UK record temperature of 38.1° Celsius was recorded in Kent on
70WH
10 August last year. In 2002, numerous local and regional records were set for windstorms, rain intensities, floods, droughts and temperatures.
My debate today is on tax and other financial incentives for home combined heat and power. I have shown that there is an accepted problem of climate change, that the Government have agreed to international treaties to take action against it, that they have policies and programmes to tackle the problem, and that the Treasury has accepted the use of fiscal measures to encourage the development and use of measures and technologies that do not effect climate change. Figures from the House of Commons Library show that 27 per cent. of carbon dioxide emissions are from domestic sources. To achieve the energy White Paper targets of a 20 per cent. reduction in CO2 emissions by 2020 and a 60 per cent. reduction by 2050, the domestic sector must play its part.
I have pointed out that this debate arose following a visit to see the technology of a Reading-based firm last September, but I want to make it clear that, although I secured the debate following contact with a firm in my constituency, I am talking about not only that company, but support for the technology.
In preparing for the debate, I contacted other firms involved in developing home CHP. Of course, support for home CHP technology will assist the firm in my constituency but, as I said, I am lobbying in favour of the technology. The energy White Paper states that the cheapest, cleanest and safest way of addressing our energy policy objectives is to use less energy. Some 27 per cent. of carbon dioxide emissions come from households, so households have an important part to play. Half of all domestic CO2 comes from boilers, despite the growth in the more efficient condensing boilers.
Micro-CHP is a home heating and power system—one boiler that can generate heat and light. It can contribute to four policy goals of the energy White Paper. First, it reduces CO2 by at least 1.5 tonnes per household per annum. Secondly, when aimed at the mass market, it provides a highly diversified generating source, reducing winter peak demand on the grid and enhancing security of supply, which is obviously welcome when there is concern about the future electricity supply. Thirdly, it provides adequate and affordable home heating, even in homes that are hard to heat, and reduces energy bills by some £150 a year, which makes it the heating system with the lowest lifetime cost. Fourthly, it helps to improve our competitiveness, as the UK is at the forefront of the technology.
If only a quarter of heating systems installed between now and 2020 were micro-CHP, they would provide half the energy White Paper's carbon-saving targets for domestic energy efficiency. At the same time, that would provide the equivalent of 40 per cent. of today's nuclear capacity, and would provide significant, secure and diverse generating capacity.
Micro-CHP has all that going for it, so why do I seek tax and other fiscal incentives for home—or micro—CHP? Micro-CHP boilers offer average savings of £150 a year and are cheaper than other boilers over the full lifetime, but they are more expensive to buy, as most new technology tends to be. They also suffer from

71WH
anomalies in the tax system. There is 5 per cent. VAT on the use of energy, but 17.5 per cent. VAT on the purchase of micro-CHP. Market research carried out for MicroGen, the micro-CHP manufacturer in my constituency, shows that customers are excited by the technology and are attracted to the energy savings as well as the idea of independence and control over power and fuel supply, but they do not value the environmental benefit highly.
In addition, installers like to install known technology and are risk averse. Most importantly, perhaps, customers are disproportionately influenced by upfront costs. We should remember that most people do not plan to buy a new boiler. More often than not, buying a new boiler is a distress purchase and people are unhappy about it.
The cost has a great impact on the purchase of a boiler, and the tax system encourages the use of energy rather than investment in technology that reduces energy use. Would it make a difference if the VAT on a new boiler was reduced to 5 per cent? Evidence from two different sources suggests that it would. Condensing boilers were introduced to the Dutch market in 1980. There were environmental benefits to installing the boilers and they were cheaper to run. They were also more expensive to buy. Throughout the 1980s, sales of condensing boilers in Holland accounted for about 10 per cent. of annual gas boiler sales. In 1989, however, a major subsidy scheme was launched and, within six years, condensing boilers accounted for nearly 50 per cent. of all gas boiler sales. Then, building regulations were introduced requiring the introduction of condensing boilers. That saw sales in Holland reach more than 90 per cent. last year.
Contrast that with the UK. In 1990, sales in the UK were also running at about 10 per cent. Following awareness campaigns, voluntary agreements and low-level subsidies throughout the 1990s, they still accounted for 10 per cent. of Centrica's gas boiler sales. New boilers are bought only every 15 years or more. Imagine all those less-efficient boilers installed through the 1980s and 1990s that are still with us. Think of the people trying to heat homes who are spending more money than they should. Think of the carbon dioxide we have emitted that need not have been emitted.
The second set of evidence relates to the UK experience. As I said, in 2001 condensing boilers accounted for 10 per cent. of Centrica's central heating sales. This year, after two years of the price-matching scheme, which offered condensing boilers for the same price as conventional, sales of condensing boilers have more than tripled and account for an average of 35 per cent. of all sales. This is clear: fiscal incentives to encourage people to invest in boilers that save families money, help the environment and help to secure safe generating capacity work.
There is another fiscal incentive that could play a large part in developing a market. Registered social landlords purchase and install boilers in large numbers. The change that would most help to develop a market in this area relates to enhanced capital allowances, because registered social landlords typically do not purchase new boilers, but lease them. Enhanced capital allowances would help to make the boilers more
72WH
competitive for registered social landlords and would help residents of social housing to benefit from reduced heating costs, as well as to play their part in reducing our carbon dioxide emissions.
What would be the cost to the Treasury of such measures? Estimates—again for MicroGen—show that if nothing is done, around 150,000 CHP boilers will be sold by 2010. With a 5 per cent. VAT rate, however, the volume would be almost 400,000 by 2010. That would make a massive difference to the environment, to low-income families, to the security of generational supply and to UK manufacturing. The annual cost of that reduction in VAT for 400,000 CHP boilers by 2010 is estimated at £25 million. Using the Government's own recommended figures for the social cost of carbon, independent empirical research-based analysis predicts that reducing the VAT on micro-CHP would result in a benefit, not a cost.
Why push for action now? Why does it matter that something is done soon to introduce fiscal incentives for home CHP'? As we saw with the development of condensing boilers, and from the market research, the bigger upfront cost for the new boilers means that the market is not likely to develop as quickly as it would if incentives were introduced. If we were talking about petrol that might not be a problem; a wait for a year or two while the Treasury carried out a consultation or negotiations would not matter so much. However, this area is different. People buy a new boiler only every 15 years. The greater the delay, the more people will buy boilers that do not benefit the environment and do not save them money, the longer it will be before we gain security of supply, and the fewer the opportunities we will offer to British manufacturing to get a head start in a new and developing technology.
What is even worse is that once an inefficient boiler is installed, it cannot be changed without enormous inconvenience and extra cost. Every time someone chooses to install a traditional boiler rather than a micro-CHP boiler, the opportunity to save more than 20 million tonnes of carbon dioxide over the next 15 years is lost, and another will not arise for another 15 years.
Perhaps most importantly of all, there is the Government's commitment in the energy White Paper to produce a domestic energy efficiency implementation plan by 24 February. It has already been stated that that plan will include fiscal measures. If the Government wait for the Budget before announcing measures to correct the market failures and barriers, the implementation plan will not be able to include those measures or it will have to be delayed until after the Budget. Either way, we all lose out.
On Thursday 18 December last year, those matters were raised in Treasury questions. In response, the Economic Secretary said that changes to capital allowances would have to wait for the completion of a review of corporation tax and that the matter of 5 per cent. VAT relied on negotiations in the European Union. The Economic Secretary accepted that there was frustration in the industry about the time it is taking to resolve the matter, although no indication was given of when it might be resolved. Will the review of corporation tax be completed before the publication of the energy efficiency implementation plan or the Budget? Accepting that the outcome of negotiation with others is difficult to predict, does the Minister expect

73WH
that negotiations within the EU will be completed before the publication of the energy efficiency plan or the Budget?
I hope that I have shown that the development of a market for micro-CHP has benefits for families, because it reduces fuel bills; for climate change, because it reduces CO2 emissions; for security of energy supply, because extra generating capacity will be developed; and for the economy, because British manufacturing capacity in a world-leading technology will be expanded.
At the same time, I hope that I have shown that the longer we delay in introducing measures to correct problems in the market that act against the introduction of micro-CHP, the more opportunities we will miss to obtain those benefits. I beseech the Minister on behalf of hard-working families, the environment, our generating capacity and British manufacturing to put his shoulder to the wheel and do what he can to get those changes introduced as quickly as possible.
4.16 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) on securing the debate and giving us a valuable opportunity to update the exchanges at last month's Treasury questions.
My hon. Friend has a long-standing interest in environmental and sustainable energy issues and has long shown an active involvement in that subject in Parliament. As the Treasury Minister responsible for environmental policy—the green Minister in the Treasury—I get invited to many all-party parliamentary group meetings on topics such as sustainable waste management, energy studies, wildlife and conservation, the environment and renewable and sustainable energy. When I turn up to those meetings, I often find that she is present as an office holder in the group.
My hon. Friends the Members for Reading, East and for Peterborough (Mrs. Clark) clearly take a close interest in the companies that are at the forefront of some of the technological developments in the field. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East mentioned MicroGen Energy, which is based in her constituency and has operations in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough. I can confirm that MicroGen Energy has had discussions with Treasury officials and that it has submitted a useful briefing on technical aspects of European VAT law. Customs officials plan to visit one of the technology plants next week to find out more.
BG Group is the parent company of MicroGen Energy, and it has contacted me directly about those issues. As you might imagine from my short description, Sir Nicholas, that company is an active advocate in this policy area. Just before Christmas, a senior Customs official found herself at a charity drinks reception where she ran into a senior executive from MicroGen Energy. When the senior executive found out who she was, he spent half an hour expounding the benefits and virtues of reduced VAT rates to support micro-CHP. I assure my hon. Friends that the case is being made strongly across the board.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East has made the case forcefully—and briefly—this afternoon. She was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for
74WH
Peterborough, who also takes an active interest in such issues in Parliament—as I know, partly to my cost, from my regular appearances before the Environmental Audit Committee, of which she is a member.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East set out the wider context to the consideration of such policy issues. She recognised that the energy White Paper, which was published early last year, acknowledges the challenges that we all face in tackling climate change and the importance of energy policy in helping to meet those objectives. In recognition of that interrelationship, the Government announced that one of the goals of energy policy would be to put the UK on a path to cut carbon dioxide emissions, which are the main contributor to global warming, by some 60 per cent. by 2050, as recommended by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.
The White Paper also recognised the role that increased energy efficiency in the home would be required to play in achieving progress on the targets for 2020 and 2050. Since 1997, Labour in government has consistently sought to provide economic and fiscal incentives to improve domestic energy efficiency. One way in which we have done that has been to make the best use of the reduced VAT rate, although our ability to introduce new VAT reliefs is constrained by European VAT law. Without changes at European level, we cannot introduce a reduced rate for energy-saving materials that are installed by DIY, nor can we tax competing goods at different rates of VAT.
Even with those limitations, over the last five years, we have built up an extensive range of reduced rates for installations of energy-saving materials and products. We introduced the first ever VAT reduced rate for installations of energy-saving materials in 1998 and we have extended it twice, in 2000 and 2002, so that it now covers the installation of a wide range of energy-saving products with particular emphasis on helping the most vulnerable households, something that was stressed by my hon. Friend.
First, we introduced a reduced rate of 5 per cent. VAT for the supply and installation of certain energy-saving materials, such as insulation products, in the homes of elderly or less well-off people, provided that the work was grant-funded under a relevant scheme. The reduced rate was introduced to make sure that the grant funding could go further, allowing more vulnerable households to benefit.
Two years later, we were able to extend the relief to the supply and installation of certain energy-saving materials in all residential accommodation, even if the work was not grant funded. At the same time, the list of energy-saving materials was extended to include installations of solar panels and wind and water turbines to ensure that the relief covered all products whose primary purpose was to save energy. In addition, we extended the reduced rate to include relief for contractor installations of central heating systems and heating appliances in the homes of less well-off elderly people, reflecting our expansion of the home energy efficiency scheme to include those products.
More recently, in the 2002 Budget, to ensure that extra help goes to the most vulnerable households and to reflect the extension of the home energy efficiency scheme as part of our fuel poverty strategy, we extended

75WH
the reduced rate of VAT again to include grant-funded installations of factory-insulated hot water tanks, domestic combined heat and power units, and heating systems that use renewable energy. That means that grant-funded installations of micro-CHP boilers are already covered by the reduced rate.
I would argue, and I hope that my hon. Friend would accept, that the Government have demonstrated that we are ready to use—to the full—the freedoms that we have to introduce reduced rates to help with energy efficiency in the home, and that we have pressed hard for the extension of the scope to introduce further derogations in discussions with our partners in the European Union.
My hon. Friend rightly set her comments in a wide context. On the wider front, the Government have continued to seek opportunities—beyond the question of reduced VAT rates—to encourage energy efficiency in the home. Last month, in the pre-Budget report, we reported on the completion of the latest consultation for using economic instruments, including tax, to help improve energy efficiency in households. The responses to the consultation, which were published alongside the pre-Budget report, were strongly supportive of the use of fiscal instruments to encourage such household energy efficiency. My hon. Friend might be interested to know that 120 out of the 126 respondents supported the greater use of reduced VAT rates and that 67 of the 126 supported the use of capital allowances and enhanced capital allowances to help companies to write off investments in energy savings equipment for households and social landlords.
In response to that consultation, the Government confirmed in the pre-Budget report that they see a case for using economic instruments as part of a wider package to promote greater domestic energy efficiency, but, until the outcomes of the European VAT review and of the Government's review of corporation tax are clearer, it is too early to make detailed announcements. However, I assure my hon. Friend that I aim to ensure that a further announcement can be made at around the time of the Budget this year.
76WH
It is disappointing that the future of those European-level negotiations on reduced rates for VAT remains uncertain. In the short term, those negotiations are unlikely to deliver an opportunity for VAT rates to be used to encourage domestic energy efficiency beyond the existing provisions, but we remain committed to securing new reduced rates for DIY materials that help to save energy. Whatever the outcome of the VAT negotiations, the Government will examine what further options under existing VAT legislation are open to us.
On corporation tax, the consultation period on the review ended on 3 November. There was substantial interest and a substantial number of responses. We are closely analysing and considering the implications of the responses that we received.
Micro-CHP, as my hon. Friend said, offers simultaneous generation of heat and power in a unit that is about the same size as a domestic heating boiler. Although these are early days for the technology, we hope that it will offer significant reductions in both household energy bills and carbon emissions. I confirm that we shall consider a role for capital allowances to play a part in encouraging installation of micro-CHP in the context of both the energy saving strategy and of the corporation tax review. I also assure my hon. Friend that we shall fully consider the case for micro-CHP and reduced VAT rates as part of the process of considering responses to the energy consultation document.
My hon. Friend has used this debate effectively to advance the proposition that micro-CHP is a technology that could make a valuable contribution to greater domestic energy efficiency. We recognise that, and that the gains may be even greater in future as the industry develops the technology further. We have made provision for reduced rates of VAT on grant-funded installations of micro-CHP. We shall consider both the case and the scope for doing so for domestic installation and we are also considering the case and the scope for going further.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Four o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Bus Services
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the role of his Department in the dissemination of best practice on bus services.[145876]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department for Transport plays an active role in disseminating good practice in the bus sector, both alone and in partnership with other stakeholders in the industry and local authorities. Recent examples include a "Good Practice Guide on rural bus service provision" and revised guidance on "Protecting Bus and Coach Crews".

  Transport Schemes
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assistance his Department gives to local government in respect of formulating bids for(a) light rail and (b) other transport schemes.[145877]

  Mr. McNulty
  We are always happy to discuss with local authorities, without prejudice, emerging proposals for light rail and other local transport schemes, and to explain what information will be required to support any bids for funding. A manual of guidance on our appraisal methodology is also available.

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the(a) amount of and (b) uses of revenue from speed cameras.[145878]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The latest audited figures are for the year 2000–01, in which £8.6 million of speeding fine receipts was passed to seven safety camera partnerships, and for 2001–02 in which £11.4 million was passed to 14 safety camera partnerships in England and Wales. In those two years £1.2 million and £4.3 million respectively, was returned to the Treasury.

  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money raised in fines from speed cameras during the last year for which records are available was spent in(a) Billericay and District, (b) Basildon and District and (c) Essex; and how that money was spent.[145792]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In 2001–02 the Essex Safety Camera Partnership claimed £3,003,763 to cover the costs of purchasing and operating cameras in their area which includes Billericay and Basildon, for which separate figures are not available.
  216W
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money was raised in fines from speed cameras in the last year for which records are available in(a) Billericay and District, (b) Basildon and District and (c) Essex.[145793]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In 2001–02 £3,524,120 in conditional offer fixed penalties was collected by the Essex Safety Camera Partnership which includes Billericay and Basildon, for which separate figures are not available.

  Mr. Baron
  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) Billericay and District, (ii) Basildon and District and (iii) Essex[145794]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Essex Safety Camera Partnership covers all of Essex and includes Billericay and Basildon. The number of fixed camera sites are shown in the following table.

  Fixed camera added

  Total sites

  Pre–1999

  20

  20

  1999

  8

  28

  2000

  0

  28

  2001

  28

  56

  2002

  9

  65

  2003

  17

  82

  In addition, six mobile camera units work at approximately 300 locations in Essex.

  School Transport
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received on making the wearing of seat belts on school transport compulsory.[145879]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None. The Department is however in the process of implementing EU Directive 2003/20/EU of 8 April 2003 on seat belt wearing. This requires the wearing of seat belts by passengers in buses and coaches where they are installed.

  Train Punctuality
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the latest statistics on train punctuality.[145880]

  Mr. McNulty
  Performance figures published by the Strategic Rail Authority on 11 December showed that year on year performance was up 0.5 per cent. to the end of September 2003. We are putting in funding to reverse the decades of under-investment and improve reliability. Early indications are that performance this autumn has been significantly better than in 2002.

  A303
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the dualling of the A303.[145881]
  217W
  Mr. Jamieson
  We are hoping to reach a decision on the route choice for the A303 improvement west of Ilminster in the spring after we have received the comments of the Regional Assembly on the Highways Agency's further work.

  Airport Capacity (South-East)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to what extent he proposes details of development at airports in the south-east of England under "The Future of Air Transport" White Paper should remain a matter of local determination through the planning system.[145882]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer the hon. Member to the Aviation White Paper which says that it is for owners and operators to bring forward airport development proposals which will need to be considered through the planning system in the normal way.

  Cycling
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his Department's strategy for(a) increasing cycling journey numbers and (b) reducing cycling injuries and deaths.[145883]

  Mr. McNulty
  We are improving cycling infrastructure and, having initiated the Cycling Projects Fund, we have given over £4 million for local cycling facilities and training. On the safety front, we are promoting training and measures which cyclists can take to protect themselves, such making themselves conspicuous. We are also improving training and testing for motorists.

  Aviation Industry
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made of varying levels of aviation capacity on the competitiveness of the UK's international trade.[145736]

  Mr. McNulty
  Assessments of the impact of the growth in the aviation industry in increasing productivity growth across the economy were made by Oxford Economic Forecasting ("The Contribution of the Aviation Industry to the UK Economy", November 1999). However, the appraisal of airport development options made in the regional air transport consultation documents focus on the direct benefits to passengers of increased airport capacity. No estimates were made of wider economic benefits to the economy arising from factors such as improvements in the UK's competitiveness, but the potential effect of additional airport capacity on productivity across the economy can be gauged from the resulting increase in business passengers and air freight activity.

  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made of the effects of the growth in aviation-related employment on other employment sectors.[145737]
  218W
  Mr. McNulty
  Assessments of the contribution of aviation to employment growth in other sectors of the economy have been undertaken by Oxford Economic Forecasting ("The Contribution of the Aviation Industry to the UK Economy", November 1999) and by ECOTEC Research and Consulting Ltd. ("The Local and Regional Economic Impacts of the Expansion of Regional Air Services", January 2001). "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: North of England" consultation document included material from these studies on aviation-related employment.

  Birmingham New Street Station
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what discussions he has had with the Strategic Rail Authority regarding possible refurbishment of Birmingham New Street Station; and if he will make a statement;[145377]
  (2) what discussions he has had with Network Rail regarding possible closures of Birmingham New Street Station during peak times; and if he will make a statement.[145378]

  Mr. McNulty
  I understand that in the short term, Network Rail is developing a plan to continue to manage passenger capacity efficiently while improving passenger circulation at Birmingham New Street. The Strategic Rail Authority and Network Rail are also working together and with local and regional stakeholders to continue the safe and efficient operation of the station, and to develop a series of station capacity and infrastructure enhancements to improve its environment. This will ensure that the predicted substantial growth in demand for rail services in the region in the medium to longer term can be addressed.

  Bristol/Bath to South Coast Study
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the reasons for the delay in completing the Bristol/Bath to South Coast Study; and what estimate he has made of the likely completion date.[145226]

  Mr. McNulty
  The study, which was commissioned to address the concerns of Bath and North East Somerset Council and the South West Regional Assembly over the proposed de-trunking of the A36/A46, has been further delayed because it has taken longer than anticipated for the consultants to complete the modelling and firm up their conclusions. It is now anticipated that the revised Final Reports will be cleared by the Steering Group by late January 2004. Once approved, they will be submitted to the South West Regional Assembly for comment and possibly additional brief consultation with their partners, in particular regarding the de-trunking issue which gave rise to the study being commissioned.
  Following receipt of the study report and comments from the Regional Assembly, I will be in a position to make a response.

  Congestion Charging
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the use of satellite technology for congestion charging.[145381]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport made a statement to the House on 9 July 2003,Official Report, columns 1175–95, announcing a feasibility study into the potential for road charging in the UK, which is expected to report this summer. The Terms of Reference were published on 9 July in "Managing our Roads", which is available on my Department's website.

  Heathrow Airport
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department made of the need to widen major roads into and out of Heathrow, in the event of a third runway at Heathrow being built.[145447]

  Mr. McNulty
  The South East and East of England Regional Air Services Study (SERAS) included an assessment of the road and rail infrastructure enhancements that would be needed to support a third runway at Heathrow. The results of this appraisal were summarised in Chapter 7 of "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East" consultation document.
  The White Paper, "The Future of Air Transport", recognised that the further expansion of Heathrow will place pressure on already congested road and rail networks. It stated that the Government have no plans for further motorway widening in this area beyond that which we announced in our response to the Thames Valley and Orbit multi-modal studies in July 2003, and that the solution would need to be based on improvements to public transport.

  North Downs Tunnel
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the thickness was of the invert of the North Downs Tunnel approved by the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996; and what change there has been in the specification.[145977]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996 contains no specifications of the tunnel lining thickness. The specifications relating to such details in the North Downs Tunnel were first drawn up later. The tunnel has a concrete lining with a relatively flat invert and reinforced concrete base slab, which supports the ballasted track. The concrete is about 1 metre thick in the invert and the average ballast thickness is 600 mm.

  Railways (Disabled Access)
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received from the Strategic Rail Authority concerning the ability of railway stations to conform to the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.[145089]

  Mr. McNulty
  The SRA is considering how best to prioritise a programme of works to meet the accessibility requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act and will be consulting on draft criteria this year.
  220W
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of whether the Strategic Rail Authority will be liable for prosecution if railways do not have disabled access by the required date in 2004.[145403]

  Mr. McNulty
  With effect from 1 October 2004, providers of services will be under new duties to take reasonable steps to ensure that a disabled person can make use of a service, pursuant to section 21(2)(a)-(c) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
  Section 19(2)(b) of the Act defines a provider of services as being a person concerned with the provision in the United Kingdom of services to the public or a section of the public. Interpretation is a matter for the courts, but the Strategic Rail Authority's assessment is that the section 21 duties will apply to train operating companies that lease stations, and to Network Rail in respect of the stations it operates itself.
  The SRA is working with the rail industry and disabled people to ensure a more accessible transport network, with the greatest possible choice for disabled people within the available resources.

  Road Crossings
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidance he has recently issued to local authorities on the number of road crossings to help people who are(a) disabled and (b) partially sighted; and if he will make a statement.[145379]

  Mr. McNulty
  Local Transport Notes 1/95 and 2/95 cover the general assessment and design of road crossings, respectively. The latter includes guidance on installing audible and tactile signals to help disabled pedestrians at signalled crossings. In addition, we have issued specific guidance on meeting the needs of disabled people, including blind and partially sighted people, in "Guidance on the Use of Tactile Surfaces" (1999) and "Inclusive Mobility" (2002).

  Traffic Calming
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many deaths he estimates have resulted from delay caused by speed humps and traffic calming preventing the emergency services reaching emergency incidents since 2000.[145822]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department has received no evidence that speed humps cause additional deaths.

  Transport Infrastructure (South Bedfordshire)
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the impact of planned future house building on the transport infrastructure of South Bedfordshire.[145873]

  Mr. McNulty
  The London to South Midlands Multi-Modal Study took account of the likely scale of growth that is now proposed in the Milton Keynes South Midlands draft strategy. Following the multi-modal study we were able to add three major schemes which serve South Bedfordshire to the Targeted Programme of Improvements.

CABINET OFFICE

  Government Information and Communication Service
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how much has been allocated this financial year to the Government Information and Communication Service.[145861]

  Mr. Alexander
  Mr. Speaker, the budget for the Government Information and Communication Service Centre in the Cabinet Office for the current financial year is £2,458,395.
  Members of the GICS as a whole are employed and their work funded by individual Departments. The overall figures are not collected centrally.

  Better Regulation
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many personnel are working on the better regulation brief in the department.[145862]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Regulatory Impact Unit leads on the better regulation agenda in my Department. The unit had 58 full-time equivalent staff as at December 2003.

  Internet Use
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what proportion of internet users have transacted with a government department online in each year since 1997; and what steps are being taken to increase this proportion.[146132]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) measures the use of e-government services on a quarterly basis. Currently 8 per cent. of internet users claim to have transacted with government online, where transaction is defined as submitting a form, making a payment or booking an appointment. Many more visit web sites for information—50 per cent. of the internet population. These figures are based on a question recently added to the ONS Omnibus Survey and data exists for 2003 only.
  To improve the take-up of online services the Cabinet Office is working with departments to ensure that online services become more focussed around customer needs rather than following the structure of government. An enhanced customer offering for the delivery of electronic services will also be piloted which will present, service information in a consistent useable way clustered around topics and audience groups.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when he will respond to the correspondence to his Department containing the Tim Parry Jonathan Ball Trust's Legacy Project study.[144453]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have written to the organisation concerned today.
  I responded to the Tim Parry Jonathan Ball Trust on 30 December 2003.

  Public Appointments
  Ian Stewart
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps the Government take to ensure that people appointed to public bodies are representative of the society that they serve.[145863]

  Mr. Alexander
  This Government want boards of public bodies to be representative of society as a whole. On 17 December, we published Delivering Diversity in Public Appointments 2003. This outlines the Government's commitment to achieving greater diversity in public appointments. It includes action plans for individual Departments, together with targets to be achieved by 2006.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, if he will list vacancies for posts on public bodies which have been advertised since 2001, indicating in such case the number of(a) posts, (b) applicants, (c) persons interviewed and (d) appointments made.[145277]

  Mr. Alexander
  This information is not held centrally. Individual departments are responsible for making appointments to their own public bodies.
  The Government is committed to ensuring greater access to public appointments. A new public appointments vacancy web-site (www.publicappts-vacs.gov.uk) was launched by my Department on 27 March 2003. This provides information about current and forthcoming vacancies, helping people to find details of the appointments that are of most interest to them.

  Public Bodies
  Andrew George
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list all regional(a) advisory non-departmental public bodies, (b) executive non-departmental public bodies and (c) other autonomous public bodies, identifying those which are related to health, broken down by region; if he will indicate those which have been created since 1 May 1997; and if he will list those bodies which have been (i) abolished since 1 May 1997 and (ii) abolished but whose functions have been transferred to other public bodies.[145955]

  Mr. Alexander
  Information about non-departmental public bodies is contained in "Public Bodies 2003", and previous years' editions, copies of which are available in the House Libraries, and on the Cabinet Office website at http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/agenciespublicbodies/publicbodies/index.shtm
  The information is not broken down to regional level, nor are creation or abolition dates of bodies separately identified. This level of detail could be provided only at disproportionate expense. Public bodies related to health are primarily listed in the entry for the Department of Health, though some public bodies attached to other Departments (e.g. the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) also deal with health-related issues.

TREASURY

  Correspondence
  David Winnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will reply to the letter of 11 November from the
  223W
  hon. Member for Walsall, North concerning the statement by members of the Royal Commission on Long Term Care.[144854]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have done so.

  Departmental Policies (Regent's Park and Kensington, North)
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the impact of his policies on the constituency of Regent's Park and Kensington, North since 1997.[145421]

  Mr. Boateng
  Over the past five years, the Government have built a platform of economic stability and sound management of public finances, delivering benefits across the UK, including in London and the constituency of Regent's Park and Kensington North.
  The UK is now enjoying the longest period of sustained low inflation since the 1960s, with long-term interest rates around their lowest levels since that time. Since spring 1997, employment has increased by almost 1.7 million, and public investment increases, including the biggest ever sustained growth in the history of the NHS, are tackling the legacy of under-investment in public services.

  Employment Incentives
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make an assessment of(a) provision for young, single, working adults on low incomes and (b) incentives for those aged under 25 to move off benefits into employment.[144534]

  Dawn Primarolo
  To help young people move off benefits and into employment, the Government have introduced the New Deal for Young People, increased financial incentives to work through the National Minimum Wage and the reduction in the starting rate of income tax from 20 per cent. to 10 per cent. and improved opportunities to participate in training and education, for example through the Modern Apprenticeships scheme.

  Forward Contracts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many forward contracts have been granted to individuals and corporations(a) domiciled and (b) non-domiciled in the UK.[142719]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue have identified 17 cases where forward contracts have been granted. In two instances the agreements related to individuals or companies domiciled in the UK; the other 15 cases related to individuals or companies non-domiciled in the UK.
  The Inland Revenue no longer make these agreements.

  Growth
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the increase in forecast growth he estimates results from increases in public spending for each of the next three years.[145162]
  224W
  Mr. Boateng
  Table A4, on page 182 of pre-Budget report 2003 (Cm 6042), presents information on the contributions to forecast GDP growth from expenditure components, including government spending, between 2003 and 2006.

  IR35
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what additional revenue has been secured from investigations under the IR35 regulation(a) in total and (b) for each year since its implementation. [145747]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Establishing whether or not the intermediaries legislation applies is undertaken as part of the Inland Revenue's Employer Compliance Review programme. As such it is not possible with any accuracy to isolate data relating solely to this legislation.

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate has been made of the(a) administration and (b) employment costs arising from pursuing investigations under IR35 regulation.[145748]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There is no data held on administration and employment costs relating solely to this legislation.

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many investigations under the IR35 regulation have(a) been initiated, (b) resulted in additional revenue and (c) been concluded without securing additional revenue.[145749]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Establishing whether or not the intermediaries legislation applies is undertaken as part of the Inland Revenue's Employer Compliance Review programme. As such it is not possible with any accuracy to isolate data relating solely to this legislation.

  Spirits Seizures
  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many bottles of(a) whisky and (b) other spirits were seized by Customs and Excise in the last 12 months because duty had not been paid.[145973]

  John Healey
  The information is not available in the format requested. HM Customs and Excise central records collate the volume of spirit seized but do not distinguish the specific type of spirit.
  Details of the volume of spirits seized for this period will be included in HM Customs and Excise Annual Report and Accounts for 2003–04.
  Details of spirits seizures in the period 2001–02 are given in Appendix C of the HM Customs and Excise Annual Report 2002–03 (HC 52).

  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful prosecutions there have been for evading duty on (a) whisky and (b) other spirits in the last 12 months.[145974]

  John Healey
  The information is not available in the format requested. HM Customs and Excise central records collate the number of successful and unsuccessful prosecutions which involve spirits duty fraud but do not distinguish the specific type of spirit for which a prosecution is brought.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Tetra Communications System
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received regarding the effect of the Tetra communications system on terrestrial television reception; from which areas representations have been received; and if she will make a statement.[144670]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 18 December 2003]: Ofcom is aware of instances of interference to domestic installations from Airwave radio base stations. Airwave is the new police/public safety radio communications system currently being rolled out across the country. In all the instances so far investigated the consumers own masthead aerial amplifier, used to boost weak signals has had a pass-band wide enough to boost the television signal and, inadvertently, the unwanted radiocommunications signal.
  Testing has shown that the Tetra transmitters were operating correctly and within their designated licence parameters. In most cases a suitable filter fitted between the masthead amplifier and the TV aerial will resolve the interference and affected residents have been advised to have such filters fitted to their TV installations. As a goodwill gesture Airwave has arranged for filters to be fitted to the affected television installations in certain circumstances. The problem however is with the TV aerial amplifiers or the aerial system. Consumers should take problems up with their suppliers.

  BNFL
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what the total costs of BNFL's business operations in the United States were in each of the last five years;[142133]
  (2)what the total revenue generated by BNFL as a result of business activities in the United States was in each of the last five years;[142134]
  (3)how many business contracts BNFL has agreed in the United States in each of the last five years. [142135]

  Mr. Timms
  BNFL operates in several sectors in the US, principally environmental clean-up through its subsidiary BNFL Inc and fuel manufacture and reactor services through its subsidiary Westinghouse Electric Company. In BNFL's annual report and accounts, Note 2 identifies the sales and profit for the group arising from America (North and South combined). In 2002–03 the total sales arising from America were £747 million, and the profit before tax and exceptional items was £59 million.
  Following is a table that shows BNFL's sales and profit figures going back five years (for North and South America combined):

  £ million

  Sales

  Profit

  2002–03

  747

  59

  2001–02

  830

  (11)

  2000–01

  945

  (27)

  1999–2000

  73

  (7)

  1998–99

  74

  n/a

  Note:

  Drawn from Annual Report & Accounts.

  Business Premises
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many statutory inspections of business premises took place in each of the last five years.[145231]

  Nigel Griffiths
  There is no central database for inspections.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many statutory inspections carrying a right to entry onto business premises were carried out in each year since 1997.[145232]

  Nigel Griffiths
  There is no central database for inspections.

  Carbon Reduction Targets
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to the carbon reduction targets outlined in the Energy White Paper, what Government support is being given to research and development into(a) low carbon technologies and (b) lightweight vehicle design initiatives; and how much of that Government support has gone to companies conducting such research in (i) Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East and (ii) the north east.[144770]

  Mr. Timms
  Pursuant to the carbon reduction targets in the Energy White Paper, the Government is supporting research into low carbon and carbon-free energy generation through my Department's Renewable Energy Programme and through the Research Councils. There are no projects currently being supported under the Renewable Energy Programme in the Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland East, area. There are, however 14 projects and I recently completed project that are receiving or have received funding in the north east region as a whole. This amounts to total funding of over £6.5 million and has been provided for projects including Solar PV Field Trials and the Stingray Tidal Stream Energy Device.
  A New and Renewable Energy Centre (NAREC) has been set up by One North East in Blyth, Northumberland, to promote renewable energy in the north east. This is one of five centres of excellence designed to encourage the development of new technologies originating from the region's research base.
  The Government are also pursuing its carbon reduction targets through research into energy efficiency, and has accepted the recommendation of the Chief Scientific Adviser in his Energy Research Report that this should be a priority area for investment. An inter-departmental group, on which the Energy Saving Trust and the Carbon Trust are represented, is coordinating work in this field.
  In 2002, the Carbon Trust established the Low Carbon Innovation Programme to accelerate the development of new and emerging low carbon and energy efficient technologies in the UK, by investing in research, demonstration and development projects and leveraging in further funding.

  227W
  As stated in the Government's Powering Future Vehicles Strategy, the Government supports research and development for the encouragement of low carbon vehicles through a number of initiatives including the New Vehicle Technology Fund (NVTF) and Foresight Vehicle programmes. At present, of the 20 projects that are being supported through NVTF, none is based in the north east, although the programme is open to all regions.
  The Foresight Vehicle LINK programme supports technology transfer through collaborative R&D, aiming to raise the innovation performance of the automotive industry in the UK. The programme includes a wide portfolio of projects, valued in excess of £100 million. We do not keep separate records for each thematic group under the programme, but included in this funding is light-weighting and engine control which help reduce CO2 emissions and alternative propulsion systems. DTI has committed £12.4 million to this programme.

  Departmental Grants
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money has been allocated to fund the Grant for Investigating an Innovative Idea pilot scheme.[145492]

  Nigel Griffiths
  £2 million has been allocated for financial year 2003–04. £1 million has been allocated for financial year 2004–05 with a further £2 million being sought to supplement this.

  E-mail
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps are being taken to increase international collaboration in dealing with spam.[146134]

  Mr. Timms
  Spam is widely recognised to be a global problem and the UK is active in discussions on international cooperation to tackle cross-border spam, both multilaterally (for example, at the World Summit on the Information Society and in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) and bilaterally with the USA and other national governments. Proposals now being explored include cooperation between national enforcement agencies and the development of common international guidelines for governments and for business.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the proportion of(a) e-mails and (b) unwanted junk e-mails received in the UK that are sent from within the UK.[146135]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government do not have an estimate of the total proportion of e-mails received here that are sent from within and outside the UK. Industry estimates suggest that between 80 and 90 per cent. of unwanted junk e-mails received here come from outside the UK.

  Fuel Cells UK
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the role of, and funding given to, Fuel Cells UK.[144772]
  228W
  Mr. Timms
  The role of Fuel Cells UK is to act as an umbrella body for the emerging UK fuel cells industry. My Department is providing pump-priming funding for a two year period for Fuel Cells UK to undertake a series of activities which will help to develop the UK fuel cell industry and to establish Fuel Cells UK as a potential trade association. Fuel Cells UK was launched on 7 May 2003 and key activities to date have included the development of a UK Fuel Cell Vision, the preparation of an industry capability guide, and representation on standards work through the BSI. Proposed future activities include the preparation of an academic research capability guide, and the development of a UK Fuel Cells Roadmap.
  Funding to date by DTI since the start of this project has totalled £68,585.

  Gas Prices
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what discussions she has had with Ofgem concerning the decision by the Financial Services Authority to join in its inquiry into wholesale gas prices; if she will publish the minutes of the meetings; and if she will make a statement;[146078]
  (2) what discussions she has had with the Financial Services Authority concerning its decision to join Ofgem in its inquiry into wholesale gas prices; if she will publish the minutes of any such meetings; and if she will make a statement.[146082]

  Mr. Timms
  None. This was a matter for Ofgem and the Financial Services Authority.

  Regulation
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many regulations her Department has(a) removed and (b) reformed in each of the last five years.[146121]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Figures can only be obtained by a manual sift of all regulations and Statutory Instruments in force from 1997 onwards.

  Renewables Obligation
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money was paid into the buy-out fund by electricity suppliers as a result of failing to present renewables obligation certificates to Ofgem, in each year since the scheme began.[146130]

  Mr. Timms
  The Renewables Obligation has only been operating since 1 April 2002 and therefore data is only available for the first period of the obligation, i.e. financial year 2002-03. For this period, payments into the buy-out by electricity suppliers totalled £78,853,260 for England and Wales, and £11,210,730 for Scotland.

  Small Businesses
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many inspectors are employed by Government Departments and agencies to carry out statutory inspections of small business premises. [145230]
  229W
  Nigel Griffiths
  There is no central database containing this information.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the costs to small businesses resulting from the recent strike by postal workers.[145259]

  Mr. Timms
  I have made no such estimate. Strike action, whether official or unofficial, is damaging and inconvenient to businesses that rely on Royal Mail's services. Royal Mail had in place contingency arrangements that attempted to minimise the impact on businesses of all sizes.

  Transport, Telecommunications and Energy Council
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the outcome was of the Transport, Telecommunications and Energy Council held on 15 December; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if she will make a statement.[144901]

  Mr. Timms
  Anne Lambert, Deputy Permanent Representative to the European Union, represented the UK at the EU Energy Council in Brussels on 15 December.
  The Council considered several matters of interest to the United Kingdom. Chief among these were the directive on gas security of supply and a proposed directive on energy efficiency standards for energy using products.
  The Presidency introduced a short debate on a proposal on eco-design requirements for energy using products, which will set common EU energy efficiency standards for Energy Using Products (EuP), and is intended to make environmental improvements in areas that market forces cannot not handle. Describing it as a framework directive with a flexible approach, which took account of the characteristics of each sector, the Commission said that it wished to use the proposal to encourage industry to agree sectoral voluntary agreements. The Commission commended an integrated rather than thematic or sectoral approach, but rejected the idea of a priority product list as likely to trigger lengthy debates with industry on what should be included or excluded.
  Member states broadly welcomed the proposal and its general approach of setting selection criteria but leaving the detailed product selection to a Regulatory Committee, but many saw more clarification on the detail as needed. Most supported an integrated approach and rejected the notion of a priority product list, though some MS asked the Commission to list the kind of products expected to be covered by the instrument. The UK suggested that the Commission develop a consultation strategy to identify the product categories. Others urged that the directive sets out clearly the criteria to be applied to product selection and emphasised the need to assess the impact on competitiveness, in particular the potential adverse impact on SMEs.
  230W
  Following withdrawal of reserves by the UK and others, a general approach was agreed on the Presidency text for the proposed gas security of supply directive which sets minimum European security of supply standards and requires member states to define and publish non-discriminatory and transparent national security of supply policies compatible with the internal market. It establishes a Gas Coordination Group, outlines an approach to dealing with a major supply disruption at Community level, puts in place reporting and monitoring requirements, and provides for Commission intervention in the case of a perceived insufficiency of supplies to meet long-term gas demand. The Commission's agreement to the text, including a legal base of Article 100 EC was subject to a new Recital stating that security of supply obligations should not impede the functioning of the internal market nor impose unreasonable and disproportionate burdens.
  The Commission presented a package of proposals on energy security: a Regulation on access to gas network in the internal market which mirrors a similar electricity Regulation adopted earlier this year as part of the internal market package; a directive on security of electricity supply and infrastructure investment, mirroring the gas measures agreed earlier; and a directive on energy end-use efficiency and energy services, which sets an energy efficiency savings target.
  In lunchtime discussion on security of supply, the Commission argued that the need for action was underlined by forecasts showing the EU's need for 700 MW of extra weekly capacity by 2012 and given the 6–7 year time lag needed for building new capacity. The UK and most other member states argued against market intervention, stating that Governments and regulators were not responsible for investment in capacity or networks, and that the key need was for a stable investment framework. Drawing attention to our domestic evidence of the market working and sending investment signals, the UK emphasised that the Directive should not interfere with effective liberalisation and that we would not support any measures to control prices. Some member states supported the Commission's ideas, arguing the need for reinforced co-operation between transmission operators and regulators and for further reflection on the cause of recent price increases, which some consumers blamed on liberalisation, and for new impetus on interconnection.
  In a short exchange on cost of compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, the Commission argued that the EU needs to embrace technology to combat climate change and for all options to be explored including nuclear. The Commission also said there was a need for the EU and its MS to re-assess the EU position in the light of Russia's failure to ratify the Kyoto Treaty.
  Council Conclusions on Energy in a Wider Europe were adopted.
  The Presidency, with Greece and the Commission, reported on the Euro-Med Ministerial conference in Rome on 1-2 December. With 38 participating countries, involving industry participation from the oil, gas and electricity sectors and with the objective of implementing the conclusions of the Athens ministerial in May 2003, the event had been a success.

  231W
  The Commission briefed on the Energy Charter Treaty, the EU/Russia dialogue and relations with South East Europe. On the Energy Charter, given that Russia had not yet ratified and was still creating difficulties over the transit protocol, the Commission said that the EU and others needed to consider how to take things forward. In contrast, the Commission argued, progress had been made in the EU/Russia dialogue, e.g. investment increases in Russia by EU companies, and resolution of the problem of destination clauses (which prevent on-selling of Russian gas by the initial importing MS). The Commission defended itself against accusations of lack of transparency in the EU/Russia energy dialogue.
  In a presentation on the International Partnership for Hydrogen, the Commission saw hydrogen as important as an environmentally friendly energy source and with transport potential, and urged international cooperation as essential in order to achieve the technological breakthrough needed to take forward its development.
  Reporting on the joint informal Environment and Energy Council held at Montecatini in July 2003, the Presidency pointed to its success as a forum for bringing together environmental, energy, economic, market and other related topics as having been confirmed by the recent COP9 conclusions. Finally, Greece gave a report on the Ministerial Conference on the South-East European energy market in Athens on 8 December. An MoU had been agreed covering gas and electricity, to which the EU was a signatory.

  Veterinary Medicines
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions her Department has had with representatives from the European Commission on removing companion animals from the Veterinary Prescribing Cascade.[146099]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I have been asked to reply.
  Proposals to change the prescribing cascade have been discussed during the current review of European medicines legislation but none of these included removing companion animals from the prescribing cascade. The Common Position of the Council of Ministers at the end of the first reading adopted a proposal to separate the provisions of the cascade for food producing animals from those for companion animals so that a less restrictive regime would apply to medicines for companion animals as there are no consumer health considerations. The UK supported these amendments.
  The European Parliament adopted a compromise text for amendments in the second reading stage on 17 December 2003. This is expected to be considered for adoption by the Council of Ministers in January 2004. The compromise text did not make any changes to the Common Position in respect of the prescribing cascade.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of prescriptions for treating animals issued by veterinary surgeons were for generic drugs in each of the last five years for which records exist.[146103]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I have been asked to reply.
  232W
  The Government does not collect information on prescriptions issued by veterinary surgeons.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with the Veterinary Medicines Directorate on the proposed review of the prescribing categories of veterinary drugs, including prescription only medicines.[146104]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I have been asked to reply.
  The Veterinary Medicines Directorate is a Defra Agency and so reports to me. The legal classification of a veterinary medicinal product is based on the perceived risks of the product when it is authorised. Products which have a greater risk, require prior diagnosis or are difficult to administer are made prescription only medicines. The Government have accepted that the legal classification of products should be reviewed automatically as proposed by the Competition Commission. Such reviews will allow reports on the use of products to be taken into account when considering whether the legal classification should be changed.
  This review is one of a number of changes proposed by the Report of the Independent Review of Dispensing by Veterinary Surgeons of Prescription only Medicines (the Marsh Report) in 2001, the 2003 Report from the Competition Commission into the cost of prescription only medicines, and the Review of European medicines legislation. When the European review has concluded, the VMD will consult interested parties on implementing all of the agreed changes.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the recommendations of the Competition Commission on prescription only medicines with reference to the European review of the prescribing of veterinary medicines.[146105]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I have been asked to reply.
  The Government's formal response to the Competition Commission's report on prescription only medicines was published on 9 July 2003. There were two recommendations relating to the European Review of veterinary medicines legislation.
  For Recommendation 8, the Government agreed to keep in mind the importance of retaining the existing rights of member states to control their channels of distribution and supply of veterinary medicines during the negotiations on Review 2001 and has firmly followed that principle throughout.
  The Government said that Recommendation 9 on establishing new distribution categories for veterinary medicinal products would be considered in the light of the outcome of the European Review of medicines legislation.

  Wind Turbines
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the impact on wildlife of wind turbines.[145002]

  Mr. Timms
  Studies of the impact of wind farms on wildlife, in particular birds, suggests that there is only a small risk of bird strikes from the operation of wind turbines which have been properly sited.

  233W
  Under the normal planning regime and for consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 or the Transport and Works Act 1992 wind farm developers are required to consider all environmental aspects of wind energy projects and produce an Environmental Impact Assessment. These assessments are available to the public.

DEFENCE

  Attitude Surveys
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many and what percentage of respondents to the last assessed Royal Navy/Royal Marine Continuous Attitude Survey responded(a) yes and (b) no to (i) question 26 and (ii) question 27; and if he will make a statement.[143621]

  Mr. Caplin
  The information requested is drawn from the May 2003 edition of the Continuous Attitude Survey.
  I should point out that questions 26 and 27 in the September 2002 survey relating to the reporting of incidents of unwelcome behaviour and satisfaction with the reporting process, have been replaced by questions 30 and 31 in the current survey.
  Royal Navy
  Q30. Do you know where to get information about the RN/RM complaints procedure for unfair treatment, discrimination, harassment or bullying?

  Royal Navy

  Royal Marines

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Yes

  691

  74.70

  43

  52.40

  No

  98

  10.60

  23

  28.00

  Unsure

  127

  13.70

  15

  18.30

  Total

  916

  99

  81

  99

  Q31. Satisfied/Dissatisfied with complaints procedure.

  Percentage

  Objectivity and fairness with which your complaint was handled

  Time taken to resolve your complaint

  Royal Navy

  Very satisfied

  0.90

  0.50

  Satisfied

  1.40

  1.30

  Neither

  4.90

  5

  Dissatisfied

  1.50

  1.90

  Very dissatisfied

  2.60

  2.30

  N/A

  88.70

  89

  Royal Marines

  Very satisfied

  0.00

  0.00

  Satisfied

  1.20

  1.20

  Neither

  1.20

  3.70

  Dissatisfied

  1.20

  1.20

  Very dissatisfied

  2.40

  0.00

  N/A

  93.90

  93.90

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many and what percentage of respondents to 234W
  the last assessed Royal Navy/Royal Marine Continuous Attitude Survey mentioned (a) privatisation and contractualisation and (b) privatisation in their answers to Question 32; and if he will make a statement.[143623]

  Mr. Caplin
  Question 32 in the September 2002 Continuous Attitude Survey is asked at Question 35 in the May 2003 survey, the last assessed survey.
  There were no responses to this question.

  Civil Servants (Disabilities)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many senior civil servants in his Department are disabled, expressed in(a) numbers and (b) as a percentage of whole-time equivalents. [144981]

  Mr. Caplin
  As there are less than five members of the senior civil service in the Department with a disability, the actual number is not published in order to protect the privacy of the individual in line with Exemption 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Identity Cards
  Steve Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the implications of the introduction of compulsory identity cards for his Department.[143983]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Home Office has lead responsibility for developing the national identity cards scheme. The introduction of the scheme is a long-term undertaking and there are ongoing discussions which the Ministry of Defence will contribute to.
  Our assessment has indicated that the proposals for the introduction of compulsory identity cards would benefit the Ministry of Defence by aiding the identification of individuals who have a relationship with the Department, but who are not direct employees. Examples include potential new recruits, past employees, members of the Reserve Forces, job applicants, visitors and contractors.
  We have also considered the needs of foreign nationals serving in the armed forces. Their current military ID is not universally accepted outside of the Department, so there would be benefit in providing them with a United Kingdom ID card under the foreign residents scheme, recognising their status as members of the UK Armed Forces.
  We are not intending to replace the military ID card (or its equivalent for civilian employees) with the national ID card since our own ID card is used as a means for controlling access to MOD premises.

  Iraq
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps need to be taken to enable the number of civilian casualties killed by British forces in Iraq since the end of the conflict to be ascertained.[141675]

  Mr. Ingram
  All casualties witnessed by UK forces are reported, but it is not always possible to determine accurately the number of casualties that occur during a particular incident. For example, in some incidents,
  235W
  Iraqi injured and/or dead may have been taken away by their compatriots before UK Forces could investigate. In other incidents, UK forces have been forced to withdraw from situations before an accurate assessment of the number of casualties could be made. In such incidents we have no reliable means of ascertaining the number of casualties and there are no practical steps we could take to do so.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has examined on the alleged shooting of a demonstrator by British forces in Basra on(a)4 October and (b) 9 August.[141678]

  Mr. Ingram
  I am aware of allegations of an incident during a demonstration on 9 August but no civilian casualties were reported.
  On 4 October, on the periphery of a demonstration, British soldiers killed an Iraqi gunman in self-defence. His automatic weapon and ammunition were recovered.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has examined on the alleged deaths of Iraqi civilians in British custody on(a) 13 and (b) 18 May.[141679]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are investigations underway of alleged deaths of Iraqis while in custody but I am not aware of any involving deaths which occurred on 13 or 18 May 2003.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidelines have been issued to UK military personnel in relation to the use of force in non-combat situations in Southern Iraq.[141682]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Rules Of Engagement issued to UK forces in Iraq govern all use of force. Rules of Engagement are confidential and withheld in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the likely future levels of the(a) Royal Navy and (b) Royal Air Force presence in the Iraq theatre.[143731]

  Mr. Ingram
  We keep force levels under constant review but there are no current plans to alter the major Royal Navy or RAF assets deployed to Operation Telic. I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 5 January 2004,Official Report, column 30W.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what funding is provided to Territorial Army personnel returning from service in the Gulf.[145762]

  Mr. Caplin
  Territorial Army personnel returning from the Gulf continue to receive their pay and allowances which apply until no longer required in whole-time Army service, or until the expiration of any paid leave granted (which immediately follows whole-time Army service). On demobilisation, a travel warrant is provided for the journey home. TA personnel may be entitled to receive certain pension payments under the Armed Forces Pension Scheme or as defined within the Army Pensions Warrant 1997.
  236W
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many training days Territorial Army personnel underwent in advance of deployment to the Gulf.[145765]

  Mr. Caplin
  Territorial Army (TA) personnel deployed to the Gulf have been designated 'Fit For Role', which requires a minimum of 27 days training in the preceding 12 months. In addition, before deployment, they will have attended the Reserves Training and Mobilisation Centre for a five day period of intensive revision of their Individual Training Directives (Nuclear, Biological and Chemical, First Aid, Shooting, Fitness and Recognition) and also received series of theatre specific briefings at the Reinforcement Holding Unit. Thereafter, TA personnel posted to regular units would train with them.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations he has received on the risk of dependency resulting from recent increases in funding to developing countries to tackle the HIV/AIDS epidemic.[145436]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  I have received no representations on this matter. However, all DFID programmes, including those aimed at helping to combat the scourge of HIV/AIDS, seek to achieve long term sustainability rather than build dependency. The UK's Call for Action on HIV/AIDS, launched on 1 December last year. has at its core an objective for each country to have one national HIV/AIDS Strategy, one national AIDS Commission and one way to monitor and report progress—rather than having parallel, and less sustainable, systems and structures driven by the needs of donors.

  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps are being taken to ensure that HIV/AIDS policies take into account the particular needs of orphans and vulnerable children.[146160]

  Gareth Thomas
  The UK Government are committed to intensifying the response to HIV/AIDS, including responding to the growing number of orphans and children made vulnerable by AIDS (OVCs).
  DFID is supporting the efforts of UNICEF and UNAIDS to produce a strategic framework on OVCs. Key elements of this framework include:
  Treatment programmes to prolong the lives of parents;
  Free access to education;
  Enhanced support to the families and communities caring for OVCs.
  Meeting the needs of orphans is a complex issue requiring a comprehensive response. DFID is gaining experience in the most effective ways of developing integrated, cross-sectoral programmes of support for orphans and their carers. For example, in Malawi social protection measures for families affected by HIV/AIDS are integrated into Malawi's Poverty Reduction Strategy. These measures include targeted nutrition and

  237W
  welfare transfers, legislation on inheritance and the introduction of less intensive crops to affected households.
  In addition, in several countries in Southern Africa where there has been drought DFID is supporting a school-feeding programme (implemented by the World Food Programme). The programme is deliberately designed to keep children, including OVCs, at school and learning for the future. In South Africa DFID works closely with the Department of Social Development to ensure that children (and parents) can access the grants they are entitled to. We are also starting work with the Church of the Province of Southern Africa to reduce stigma, improve home-based care and care for OVCs. In Zimbabwe, DFID is providing support for OVCs and child-headed households through its NGO feeding programme.
  Meeting the needs of children orphaned by HIV/AIDS is a challenge that DFID is determined to address effectively.

  Indigenous People's Demonstration Project
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to his answer of 15 December,Official Report, column 719W, when he expects to make a decision on whether the Indigenous People's Demonstration Project will be affected by the reallocation of money for middle income countries.[145615]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID will continue to support the Indigenous Peoples' Demonstration Project in Brazil until at least early 2006. Expenditure over the next two years will, however, have to be reduced in view of the reduction in funds available for the region. This is consistent with the approach being taken with all other DFID projects in Latin American Middle Income Countries scheduled to continue into 2005/06 and beyond, which are either being ended prematurely or reduced in scale. A decision on whether to extend into 2006/07 will be taken in the second half of 2005 in the light of the project's progress and DFID's regional priorities. We expect that the project will have had a significant impact by early 2006 with over half of the originally envisaged training and institutional strengthening support provided by that date.

  Iraq
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures are in place to ensure that reconstruction funds in Iraq are administered in a way that secures value for money.[145282]

  Hilary Benn
  Regular DFID procedures to ensure value for money are being applied in the management of our assistance to Iraq.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much of the allocated reconstruction budget for Iraq has been spent on contracted expatriate employees; and what estimate has been made of future expenditure in this regard.[145283]
  238W
  Hilary Benn
  To date, DFID has disbursed approximately £8.5 million on the provision of international staff on projects which we are undertaking, directly and through commercial companies, in Iraq. We estimate that the total expenditure on international staff working on already-approved projects will amount to approximately £26.4 million. Further projects may be approved in the future.
  These figures include the costs of travel, subsistence, training, communications, insurance and additional security measures, as well as salaries.
  The figures do not include the costs of international staff employed by United Nations bodies, nor of NGOs working on activities funded by DFID.

  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to his statement of 15 December,Official Report, column 1319, if he will place in the Library details of the reconstruction projects that have been launched in Iraq; and if he will make a statement on the (a) purpose and (b) costs of each project funded by the UK.[145641]

  Hilary Benn
  An updated list of DFID humanitarian and reconstruction funding in Iraq, giving the purpose and cost of each allocation, will be placed in the Library of the House this week. Regular updates on DFID's programme in Iraq can be found at: http://www. dfid.gov.uk.

  Meat (Illegal Imports)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions he has had with overseas home affairs ministers about the illegal importation of meat products into the UK.[142150]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I have been asked to reply.
  We have made general approaches through our diplomatic posts overseas to the governments of other countries, to promote awareness of our import rules on meat and animal products. Defra Ministers have also raised these matters in bilateral contacts with visiting ministers from overseas governments.
  Since 11 April 2003, when Her Majesty's Customs and Excise took over responsibility for illegal imports publicity overseas, they have made contact with a number of embassies and high commissions. So far Nigeria, Ghana, India, USA, Thailand and Kenya have agreed to assist us with these issues in their countries.
  We will all continue to work with our posts and embassies abroad to raise awareness of our import rules abroad.

  Overseas Assistance
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance his Department has provided to(a) Bermuda, (b) British Virgin Islands and (c) Cayman Islands in the past year; and if he will make a statement.[145786]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  We do not now provide direct development assistance to any of them. In the financial year 2002–03, however, we spent nearly £90,000 in the closing stages of British Virgin islands' graduation from
  239W
  receipt of direct DFID support. This was mainly provision of advice on airport development and scholarships for overseas study. Both British Virgin Islands and Cayman Islands benefit indirectly from our regional support for Caribbean overseas territories, in areas such as environmental protection and disaster planning.

  Uzbekistan
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid the UK has provided to Uzbekistan since 2001; and for what purposes.[145755]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The figures for UK bilateral assistance to Uzbekistan are: 2000–01—£484,000; 2001–02—£397,000; 2002–03—£491,000. Our bilateral support has focused on the development of primary health care: training doctors in general practice; and strengthening civil society and community based organisations.
  Additionally, the UK's attributed share of multilateral assistance to Uzbekistan in calendar year 2001 (the most recent year for which figures are available) was £1.6 million broken down by EC £0.9 million, UN £0.3 million and £0.4 million other.

SCOTLAND

  Barnett Formula
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the operation of the Barnett Formula has, since its introduction,(a) narrowed, (b) widened and (c) maintained relative per capita spending between Scotland and England; and if he will make a statement.[144666]

  Mrs. McGuire
  [holding answer 17 December 2003]: Information on identifiable spending on services by country is published in Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses (the latest version is Cm 5901). Identifiable spending covers both devolved and reserved spending. Analysis of trends in Scottish spending is also contained in the Scottish Executive's annual publication Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland.

  Block Grant
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes have been made to the coverage of the block grant arrangements since 1979.[144664]

  Mrs. McGuire
  [holding answer 11 December 2003]: The arrangements for funding the Scottish Parliament are set out in the Statement of Funding Policy, which was first published by the Treasury in 1999. Revised Statements were published in 2000 and 2002. Information on the operation of the Barnett formula prior to 1999 is contained in the second report of the Treasury Committee for 1997–98, on the Barnett formula.

  Consolidated Fund
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what sums of money were(a) added to and (b) subtracted from the Scottish Consolidated Fund in each year since 1999.[144665]

  Mrs. McGuire
  [holding answer 17 December 2003]: The operation of the Scottish Consolidated Fund is a matter for the Scottish Executive. Details of grant paid to the Scottish Executive are published in main and supplementary Scotland Office estimates, and in Scotland Office Department Reports.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the costs that would fall on(a) the Government and (b) business if the Scottish Parliament voted to use its powers to vary the basic rate of income tax as specified in Section 72 of the Scotland Act 1998.[144667]

  Mrs. McGuire
  [holding answer 17 December 2003]: The use of the tax varying powers, and related costs, are matters for the Scottish Executive. Scottish Executive Ministers have made it clear that they do not intend to use the tax varying powers during the course of this Scottish Parliament.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Brussels Summit
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement as to whether the 82 points referred to by Mr. Berlusconi as having been agreed to at the Brussels Summit were agreed; and whether they will be reopened.[145497]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 5 January 2004]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave to the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) today (UIN 145406).

  Civil Servants (Disabilities)
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in meeting targets for the proportion of people with disabilities in senior posts in his Department.[146010]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  At September 2003, eight FCO staff in the senior management structure declared themselves to have a disability. This represents 1.7 per cent. of all staff at this level. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is on target to meet the 3 per cent. target agreed with the Cabinet Office for 2005. Staff advisory and support groups have been established and a diversity manager is in place to develop and implement policy.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will reply to the letter to him dated 10 November 2003 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to M. Sam.[145960]
  241W
  Mr. Mullin
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 18 December 2003,Official Report, column 1107W.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the safety of asylum seekers from the Democratic Republic of Congo who are returned to their homeland after being refused asylum in the UK. [143661]

  Beverley Hughes
  The most recent information on the treatment of returned failed asylum seekers, as well as on other issues that most commonly arise in connection with asylum applications made by asylum seekers from Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is contained in the Home Office Country Report on DRC that was published at the end of October. A copy of the Report can be found on the Home Office internet site at: http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/default.asp?Pageld=172
  There is no objective evidence to support allegations of either systematic or arbitrary detention or ill treatment of returnees. The British ambassador in Kinshasa has seen no evidence that local human rights organisations have concerns about the safety of returns. Other EU countries such as Belgium and the Netherlands have also found no evidence that returnees face any ill treatment. The situation in DRC—including the treatment of returnees—is kept under review in consultation with the UNHCR and other EU countries. UNHCR's position is that they do not object in principle to enforced removals to Kinshasa of failed asylum seekers who have been found, following a full and fair asylum determination process, not to be in need of international protection.
  If an asylum application is refused, the applicant has a right of appeal to the independent appellate authorities against that decision. If following any appeal the applicant has still not established a need for international protection, then we consider it reasonable to expect an individual in that position to leave voluntarily. If they do not, we believe it entirely proper for us to take the appropriate enforcement action.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of staff employed within his Department are over 55 years of age; and what(a) number and (b) percentage of staff recruited over the last 12 months are over 55 years of age.[145932]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  At 1 June 2003. 9.76 per cent. of all FCO UK-based staff were over 55 years of age: 16 (2.8 per cent.) UK-based staff with a length of service of less than one year were over 55 years of age.

  Draft EU Constitution
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the implications of the breakdown of negotiations for the European Constitution; when the next EU summit is scheduled to take place; and what items will be on the agenda.[146224]
  242W
  Mr. MacShane
  The Intergovernmental Conference was close to consensus on the majority of issues relating to the draft Constitutional Treaty for the EU, although final agreement was not reached. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said to the House on 15 December 2003,Official Report, column 1321 "In time an agreement will be necessary to allow enlargement to work effectively". Until then, the business of the European Union will continue as normal under the existing Treaties. The Irish Presidency has undertaken to report on the way forward to the European Council at its meeting scheduled for 25–26 March 2004. The full agenda for that meeting has not yet been finalised.

  European Council
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the oral statement of the Prime Minister of 15 December 2003,Official Report, columns 1319–36, on the European Council, if he will list the points in the proposed European Constitution where consensus was close at the Brussels meeting of the European Council on 12 and 13 December; and if he will list the remaining points of disagreement.[145406]

  Mr. Straw
  Proposals published by the Italian Presidency on 9 December 2003 (and placed in the Library of the House) covered a wide range of separate issues of concern to one or more EU member states. In respect of most. though not all of these, the outcome was satisfactory for the United Kingdom, including on energy, and the "passerelle" clause and modalities for future revisions of Title III of Part Ill of the Treaty.
  In his summing up at the 1GC on Saturday 13 December 2003. Mr. Berlusconi did not list each of the individual points on which there was near consensus, but did say that they included unanimity for taxation, criminal justice, own resources decisions and social security.
  He did not, however, suggest that this was an exclusive list, and we had already made clear that there were some other outstanding issues on which we would require satisfaction before we could agree any draft Treaty on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also made clear at the IGC, as he did in his Statement on 15 December 2003, Official Report, column 132, that nothing was agreed until everything was agreed.

  Overseas Posts (Performance Targets)
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what targets have been set for(a) processing entry clearance applications at British posts overseas for (i) permanent settlement and (ii) temporary purposes, (b) the dispatch of explanatory statements where an appeal against refusal is lodged and (c) the retention of explanatory statements by the Home Office before dispatch to the Immigration Appellate Authority; and how those targets have been met over the last 12 months for which figures are available.[144621]

  Mr. Mullin
  I can confirm that the following targets have been set:
  243W
  90 per cent. of entry clearance issuing posts to interview settlement entry clearance applicants within a set target time. The target time is 12 weeks except for New Delhi, Bombay, Dhaka and Islamabad; separate targets, currently nine months apply for these posts due to the high number of settlement applications received. The latest performance measurements, covering the period 1 April to 31 October 2003, indicate that 98.4 per cent. of posts have met their target.
  90 per cent. of straightforward non-settlement entry clearance applications to be decided within 24 hours. The latest performance measurement against this target, covering the period 1 April to 31 October 2003. is 91.7 per cent.
  90 per cent. of posts to make a decision within 10 working days on non-settlement applications requiring an interview. The latest performance measurement against this target, covering the same period, is 88.0 per cent.
  For settlement applications UKvisas' Best Practice gives a target of three months between the receipt of an appeal by the post abroad and its dispatch to the Appeals Processing Centre of the Home Office. For all non-settlement applications the target is one month. Figures for performance against these targets are done on a post-by-post basis and technical problems has meant that the figures are unreliable.
  I understand that there are no targets set by the Home Office for the processing of entry clearance appeals once received by the Appeals Processing Centre. The processing of all appeals is dictated by the capacity of the Immigration Appellate Authority which is able to accept 7,100 cases per month. Ministerial priority states that 6,000 of these must be asylum cases, if these are available. This has been the case until October 2003. Significantly more entry clearance cases have been sent since then and this is set to continue over the next few months.

  Pakistan (Immigration)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the average time taken in the last 12 months was between the lodging of an appeal in Pakistan against the refusal of entry clearance for settlement and the completion of processing by UKvisas.[145393]

  Mr. Mullin
  Appeals against the refusal of entry clearance for settlement are processed in the UK by the Appeals Processing Centre of the Home Office. The current average time between receipt of an appeal at our high commission in Islamabad and its dispatch to the appeals processing centre is approximately four months.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how long he estimates that it will take for UKvisas to process the backlog of appeals in Pakistan against the refusal of entry clearance for settlement.[145394]

  Mr. Mullin
  Appeals against the refusal of entry clearance for settlement are processed in the UK by the appeals processing centre of the Home Office. Our high commission in Islamabad estimates that the average time between receipt of an appeal and its despatch to the 244W
  appeals processing centre will be reduced to three months, in line with UK visas best practice guidelines for the processing of appeals, by the end of January.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the earliest date of an appeal in Pakistan against the refusal of entry clearance for settlement which has yet to be processed is.[145397]

  Mr. Mullin
  The earliest date of an appeal against the refusal of entry clearance for settlement from our high commission in Islamabad awaiting despatch to the appeals processing centre of the Home Office is 15 August 2003.

  United States (Anthrax Production)
  Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his US counterparts on US policy on production of anthrax.[145739]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There have been no recent discussions between my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and his US counterpart regarding production of anthrax.
  The United States is a state party to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC). Under Article X of the convention, a state party is permitted to keep and produce quantities of bacteriological agents for peaceful purposes such as in the production of vaccines.
  In 1969, President Richard Nixon put an end to the United States' offensive Biological Weapons programme.
  The US has stated that it only produces small quantities of anthrax for research to develop defensive systems to detect deadly spores in the air and to decontaminate areas in the event of a biological attack.

  Yukos Affair
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 16 December 2003,Official Report, column 798W, what the nature was of his conversation with the Russian ambassador regarding the Yukos Affair.[146008]

  Mr. Rammell
  My conversation with the Russian ambassador ranged over a number of issues but I took the opportunity to raise the "Yukos affair". I expressed the importance we attach to the continuation of the successful reform process in Russia, in which the UK has a significant interest.
  I stressed that it is important that foreign investor confidence should be maintained and that Russia continues to be seen as offering an environment in which investors can do business, where the law is applied impartially and with respect for due process.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Agrochemicals
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of how much was spent by(a) agricultural

  245W
  and (b) horticultural producers on agrochemicals in each of the past six years for which figures are available.[146090]

  Alun Michael
  There are no figures available that specifically identify spending by agricultural and horticultural producers on agrochemicals.
  However the Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD) does receive annual figures of overall turnover of all sales of approved pesticides as a part of its calculation of the pesticide levy to help fund the regulatory process. These cover sales of agricultural, horticultural, amateur, forestry and amenity pesticides.
  The overall value of UK sales of approved products that have been declared to PSD are as follows:

  £ million

  1998

  591

  1999

  572

  2000

  484

  2001

  439

  2002

  446

  2003

  448

  Air Quality
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with(a) BAE systems and (b) other manufacturers regarding the timetable for implementation of new aircraft technology which would reduce detrimental effects on air quality. [143824]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Defra has not had any discussions with BAE Systems or other aircraft technology manufacturers.
  There is a continuous dialogue between the Government and industry on action to reduce emissions impacts. Two current fora stand out:

  Aerospace Innovation and Growth Team—this Department of Trade and Industry sponsored initiative has adopted the Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe targets for improvements in fuel efficiency and oxides of nitrogen emissions by 2020; and

  Greener by Design—an industry initiated group looking at innovative solutions to aviation environmental problems. It reported in February 2002 and is now entering a phase of work promoting a range of actions, including technological solutions, to reduce emissions.

  The Government also engage with UK industry and the wider manufacturing sector through the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) pushing for action to reduce emissions. ICAO action is focused upon shorter term technology improvements through increases in the stringency of emissions standards and establishing longer term technology goals.

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the company commissioned by her Department to conduct the air quality study around Heathrow has previously conducted studies and research for airlines.[143825]
  246W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  Cambridge Environmental Research Consultants (CERC) has not previously conducted studies or research for airlines. CERC has previously conducted studies involving airport emissions for local authorities and for BAA plc; a Dublin airport study is ongoing.

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether interim findings from the study on air quality in the Heathrow area commissioned by her Department have been incorporated in discussions on the proposal for a third runway at Heathrow.[143826]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Interim findings from the study are not yet available and so have not been incorporated in discussions on airport capacity at Heathrow.

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the report on air quality around Heathrow from Cambridge Environmental Research Consultants Ltd. will be discussed with the Department for Transport after its publication.[143827]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Department for Transport will be kept informed of progress of the research and the report will be discussed with the Department before and after its publication.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs if she will make it her policy to use the proposed Animal Welfare Bill to update the Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963; and if she will make a statement.[146173]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Yes. The Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963 is one of a number of pieces of legislation relating to captive and domestic animals that my department is looking to revise and consolidate under the proposed Animal Welfare Bill.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her assessment is of the effectiveness of Government attempts(a) to improve the welfare standards of horses being transported for slaughter in Europe within the draft EU regulation and (b) to include within it the dispensation for the UK to maintain protection for its horses; and if she will make a statement.[145491]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  One of the aims of the draft EU regulation on the welfare of animals during transport is to improve the welfare of horses transported for slaughter in Europe and the Government welcomes and supports those aspects of the draft. We are also developing measures to protect horses that are based on animal welfare, will further improve horse welfare throughout the EU and that do not rely on special dispensation for the UK.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how long mycobacterium bovis bacilli can survive on open pasture; and under what conditions.[141395]
  247W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  Mycobacterium bovis may be present within a variety of media on open pasture, each influencing the survival of the bas cilli. In cow manure M. bovis may survive for up to four months in autumn, five months in winter and two months in spring, dependent on concentration. Greater concentrations promote survival.
  When exposed to sunlight at 24–34 degrees celsius M. bovis has survived for 5–11 months in manure at pasture. Survival in samples buried in 1cm deep pits has been up to one year and at 5cm deep up to two years.
  M. bovis can be highly concentrated in badger urine and can survive for over a week on open pasture during the winter but very few bacilli survive after four weeks. During the summer survival can reduce to less than three days in badger urine.
  M. bovis in badger bronchial pus and sputum can survive for up to 10 weeks on open pasture in winter but less than one week in summer. Survival in badger faeces can be for up to one month during the winter but less than two weeks in summer.
  Survival may also be influenced by the presence of other microorganisms in the environment. Fungi, algae, protozoans and many other bacteria compete with M. bovis for nutrients, may have greater growth rates, and may produce natural antibiotics.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many TB reactor cattle were reported to her Department and its predecessors,(a) in each year from 1990 to 2002 and (b) from 1 January to 31 October; how many were subject to culture testing; and how many proved TB positive on culture.[142468]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Table 1 shows the number of TB reactors, how many were subject to culture for Mycobacterium bovis, and the number successfully cultured for the years 1990–2002 in Great Britain.
  Table 2 gives provisional data for the number of TB reactors, the number subject to culture, and the number successfully cultured for Mycobacterium bovis in Great Britain for 2003 (till end of October).

  Table 1 GB Figures

  Number of TB Reactors

  Number Subject To Culture Testing

  TB Positive on Culture

  1990

  719

  4

  1—

  1991

  1,050

  4

  1—

  1992

  1,086

  l—

  1—

  1993

  1,814

  2

  l—

  1994

  2,248

  515

  238

  1995

  2,861

  2,492

  1,051

  1996

  3,296

  2,852

  1,163

  1997

  3,358

  3,005

  1,196

  1998

  5,063

  4,121

  1,645

  1999

  6,047

  4,894

  2,033

  2000

  7,143

  5,456

  2,550

  2001

  5,472

  3,818

  1,447

  2002

  20,053

  14,102

  2,557

  1— Data not available

  248W

  Table 2 2003 GB Figures (provisional)

  January to October 2003

  Number of TB Reactors

  17,589

  Number Subject To Culture

  12,228

  TB Positive on Culture

  2,681

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many badgers were culled in each reactive area as part of the Independent Science Group study into bovine TB.[144928]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The table lists the numbers of badgers culled in the reactive treatment areas of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial.

  Numbers of badgers culled in reactive treatment areas of randomised badger culling trial

  Triplet

  Name of reactive treatment area

  Number of badgers culled

  A

  Blaisdon

  117

  B

  Hartland

  301

  C

  Otterham

  394

  D

  Puddlestone

  122

  E

  Cold Ashton

  188

  F

  Stithians

  435

  G

  Nettley Knowle

  256

  H

  Brendon Hills

  159

  I

  Alderton

  94

  J

  Cadbury

  0

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has for post movement testing of cattle for exposure to M.bovis; and what assessment she has made of the implications of such testing(a) within four months of movement and (b) by the date of the next due test of the herd from which the animal came. [144436]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  All farmers have been sent a leaflet "Golden rules for a healthy herd", which advises purchasers to check the disease status of cattle prior to purchase and to consider arranging a private TB test for their herd.
  In February 2003, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced a review of our bovine tuberculosis strategy. Early in the new year we will be publishing a consultation document which will represent the outcome of the first stage of that review. The consultation document will include proposals for short term measures for reducing the risk of geographic spread of bovine TB from high to low incidence areas, including consideration of proposals for the pre and/or post movement testing of cattle.
  When considering post-movement testing of cattle sold from farm to farm, we have envisaged that, as a general rule, such tests would be administered between 60 and 120 days after movement (i.e. 2–4 months post movement). This is to ensure that a minimum of 60 days have elapsed since the last test and since any potential exposure to M.bovis on the premises of origin, to avoid problems of de-sensitisation caused by recent testing and to allow for the normal delay in the development of a response to the skin test. Knowledge of whether a pre-movement test had taken place and when, would allow the post movement test to be better targeted.

  249W
  Assuming post-movement testing is carried out as outlined, the date of the next due test of the herd of origin need not be considered.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the recognised minimum time required is from exposure of cattle to M.bovis to an immune response which will show in the skin test used by her Department. [144437]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The immune response elicited by Mycobacterium bovis in cattle takes several weeks to develop to a stage where it is detectable. For the single intradermal comparative test used in the UK and Ireland, this period of "unresponsiveness" or latency varies between 30 and 50 days.
  To allow for random and natural variation in the latency period of individual animals, the legislation requires repeat testing to be carried out at intervals of at least 60 days from the date of the removal (or isolation) of all the reactors identified at the previous skin test.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what significant variations in incubation period have been observed in herd breakdowns involving several cattle reactors resulting from infection with M.bovis.[144439]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Many factors influence the progression of Mycobacterium bovis, infection into detectable disease, including the strain of the bacterium, size of bacterial challenge and route of infection. Other factors include affected animal (species, breed, genotype, age) or the effects of its environment (nutritional status, stress, other infections and environmental bacteria).

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many strains of M.bovis have been found in(a) cattle and (b) badgers in the UK; and what assessment has been made of the virulence of each strain.[144440]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  M.bovis isolates are routinely typed using a DNA fingerprinting technique called spoligotyping. In Great Britain 30 different spoligotypes have been identified in cattle and in 16 badgers. Of those in cattle, 12 of those account for 99 per cent. of the isolates.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of whether development of lesions in cattle following exposure to M.bovis is the result of(a) a more virulent strain, (b) the level of infective dose and (c) the frequency of the infective dose. [144441]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The pathogenesis of bovine TB is not yet fully understood. As a result, Defra is funding several research projects into the pathogenesis and immunology of the disease.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average length of herd breakdown was in(a) 2002–03 and (b) 1998; how many 60 day tests were needed to clear (i) suspect and (ii) infected herds in each year; and what the cost of the tests were.[144442]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The information is as follows:250W

  (a) The average duration of TB incidents ending in 2002 was skewed by those herds already restricted when TB testing was suspended during the foot and mouth disease outbreak of 2001. The figures for TB incidents ending in 2002 (the last year for which statistics are available) were as follows: unconfirmed incidents—149 days; confirmed incident—291 days.

  The mean length of unconfirmed new TB incidents (herd breakdowns) ending in 1998 was 114 days, i.e. slightly less than two short interval (60-day) tests. In the same year, the mean length of confirmed new incidents was 208 days.

  Information on the cost of tests needed to clear unconfirmed and confirmed herd incidents in each year is not readily available and can be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of badgers which appeared TB free in post-mortem examination were culture positive to M.bovis, in the last year for which figures are available.[144443]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The last year for which data are available is 1999. These are from Badger Removal Operations and the Road Traffic Accident (RTA) survey that predate the Randomised Badger Culling Trial and associated RTA survey.
  In 1999, 874 badger carcasses were considered suitable for post-mortem examination. 753 displayed no visible lesions suggestive of TB. Mycobacterium bovis was isolated in 54 of these.
  Therefore, the proportion appearing TB free at postmortem, but culture positive for m. bovis is 7.2 per cent.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of cattle showed no visible lesions in post mortem examination but were culture positive for M.bovis, in the last year for which figures are available.[144444]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Last year, 6,600 samples were sent for laboratory culture after no visible lesions were found at post mortem. Mycobacterium bovis was successfully cultured in 5.6 per cent. of these.

  Bovine TB (Badgers)
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment has been made of whether badgers infected by TB may excrete urine from which viable m. bovis bacilli may be isolated; what the typical quantities per millilitre are; and whether such levels are capable of causing infection in cattle through(a) contamination of feed and (b) other mechanisms.[144445]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Some badgers develop TB infection in the kidneys 37 per cent. of infected badgers sampled post mortem between 1971 and 1978 m. bovis was isolated from the kidneys and may excrete m. bovis bacilli in urine. Urine is typically left in trails up to a metre or
  251W
  more in length and may be focussed at a latrine, or distributed more randomly as the badger forages. Concentrations of up to 300,000 bacilli per ml of badger urine have been reported and experimental nasal inoculation of cattle suggests that, at this concentration of viable microbes, less than 0.03 ml would need to be inhaled by cattle in order to promote slow infection.
  Investigations into infection of cattle from feed and other sources contaminated with infected badger urine are lacking. However, risk of infection to cattle by infected badger urine on cattle feed would be a function of the survival of the microbe in the feed (which is dependent on, for example, duration since excretion, moisture content of the environment, exposure to UV rays) the number of microbes consumed by the cattle and the method of consumption (i.e. ingestion or inhalation). I am unaware of measurements of m. bovis survival in cattle feed but the environment inside farm buildings is generally considered to be conducive to longer periods of survival than at pasture, where m. bovis in badger urine has survived for three days in summer and 28 days in winter.
  Cattle appear less able to detect badger urine than faeces at pasture away from latrines. In addition, patches contaminated with urine detected by cattle appear to be sniffed more than those contaminated with faeces. Furthermore, some cattle do not select against latrines and freely graze over them. Therefore, potential sources of risk of cattle contact with infected badger urine include the ingestion of contaminated feed from feed stores or in troughs; investigation/grazing at and around latrines; and the investigation/grazing of contaminated pasture.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what controls there are on the movement of wild badgers, for relocation elsewhere, with particular reference to Krebs trapping areas.[144446]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Badgers are a protected species and it is an offence to take (or attempt to take) a badger from the wild, including for the purpose of relocation elsewhere (Protection of Badgers Act 1992, s.1(1)). A person guilty of this offence is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for up to six months and/or a fine of up to £5,000.
  There are certain exceptions to this offence, two of which are specifically relevant to the issue of relocating badgers. These are the treatment of injured or sick badgers, and relocations licensed by the appropriate statutory conservation agency or agricultural department (English Nature and Defra, respectively, in England).
  Under section 6, a person is not guilty of an offence by reason only of:
  "(a) taking or attempting to take a badger which has been disabled otherwise than by this act and is taken or to be taken solely for the purpose of tending it".
  As a native species, there are no specific restrictions under current law regulating where badgers are released once they have recovered. Normally, once fit enough to
  252W
  be released into the wild, the badger will be returned to the location where it was originally found. This approach is recommended on welfare grounds due to their territorial nature, and also to avoid any risk of transmitting disease. However, there are situations in which this course of action may not be feasible (particularly in the case of orphaned cubs).
  There is a voluntary code of practice covering the rehabilitation and release of badgers, and this has a precautionary approach aimed at minimising the risk of transmitting bovine tuberculosis (TB). All badgers to be relocated are tested for TB three times. Only animals testing negative to all three tests are released and any animal testing positive is euthanased. The code also requires that all released badgers are permanently marked (by a tattoo or microchip) and registered. The code is available via the internet at: http://www. badger.org. uk/action/badger-rehabilitation-protocolcontents.html
  Under section 10 of the Act, licences may be issued to permit badgers to be taken from the wild (and relocated if necessary) for a limited range of specified purposes, including scientific investigation, preventing the spread of disease, and preventing serious damage to property.
  Relocating badgers is only permitted where there is considered to be a very low risk of transmitting TB, and before any badgers are released at a new location all animals are tested three times for the disease. All badgers testing positive to any of the three tests, or in contact with a badger testing positive, are euthanased.
  Badgers are not relocated as part of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (the so-called Kreb's trial), and the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB have advised that are no special arrangements relating to the relocation of badgers in trial areas.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what incentive she provides for energy companies to set up combined heat and power initiatives; and what assessment she has made of the benefits for consumers.[142039]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Incentives introduced recently to encourage CHP schemes include: exemption of Good Quality CHP electricity from the Climate Change Levy; eligibility of Good Quality CHP for Enhanced Capital Allowances and business rates exemption on plant and machinery. Consumers benefit financially from CHP by saving up to 40 per cent. on fuel bills. There are also environmental benefits through reduced carbon emissions. Energy companies can also use CHP as a measure to meet their Energy Efficiency Commitment targets.

  Committee on Radioactive Waste Management
  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will take steps to ensure that the knowledge and experience of the management of nuclear materials held by people in West Cumbria are represented on the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management; and if she will make a statement.[142447]
  253W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 9 December 2003]: CoRWM members have been appointed upon the basis advertised on 26 March 2003 and in line with procedures laid down by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. This provided a good field of over 400 candidates for membership, from which we have been able to appoint a strong committee.
  CoRWM's task will be to oversee a debate and assessment, involving both the public and stakeholder groups, of the way in which the UK's higher activity radioactive wastes should be managed over the long term and to provide UK Government and devolved administration Ministers with recommendations.
  CoRWM is an independent body that itself decides how it conducts its work. But it is clearly important that West Cumbria should be strongly represented in the debate which CoRWM will be launching and overseeing. The committee must deliver recommendations that can be seen to have a broad degree of support, and the views of the people of West Cumbria will be particularly significant given their experience and the stake that they have in the safe management of the UK's radioactive waste. CoRWM is required to take into account all views supplied to it in arriving at its recommendations.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the impact of the Common Agricultural Policy reform package of 26 June on tenant farmers in the UK.[143553]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  No specific assessment has been undertaken of the impact of the CAP reform proposals on tenant farmers. However, we have assessed the impacts of the proposals on farming and other businesses generally in England, including an analysis by farm activity, and a summary of these is included in the Regulatory Impact Assessments which have been lodged in the House Libraries. An additional analysis looking at the impact on distribution of payments of various options for operating the Single Payment Scheme has also been carried out and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House. Our economists are continuing to analyse the potential impact of different methods of making the Single Payment.
  For the first time, the bulk of farm subsidy will not be dependent on what or how much farmers produce. As with the previous system, subsidy would be paid to the farmer, whether owner or tenant, will continue to hold the subsidy entitlement. Tenant farmers, along with other farmers, will therefore be free to produce what they judge the market wants and so be better able to cut costs and increase profits. Farmers will also be freed from some of the bureaucracy associated with the subsidy schemes which are being replaced by the new decoupled subsidy.

  Mr. Wills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total cost of the common agricultural policy in the United Kingdom was to(a) consumers and (b) taxpayers; and what the costs were to (i) United Kingdom taxpayers and (ii) consumers, broken down by agricultural
  254W
  commodity supported by the common agricultural policy in the most recent year for which figures are available.[144459]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The consumer cost of the CAP can be estimated by examining the difference between UK and world prices for agricultural food products. Our latest provisional estimates for 2002 show a cost of the CAP to consumers of around £3.3 billion.
  The notional taxpayer contribution to CAP expenditure can also be estimated though, in practice, UK taxpayers contribute to the whole EU budget rather than to specific components. We estimate that, in 2002, this notional cost to UK taxpayers of expenditure under the CAP was around £3.5 billion.
  The following table shows an approximate breakdown of consumer support between agricultural commodities. These estimates have, in the main, been compiled using the methodology utilised by the OECD to produce their estimates of the Consumer Support Estimate. It should be noted that the aggregate estimates will be more robust than estimates for the individual commodities. It is particularly difficult to determine the appropriate gap between UK and world prices for products whose specification varies, such as fruit and vegetables, or pigs, eggs and poultry.

  £ million

  Commodity

  Cost

  Cereals

  30

  Sugar beet

  130

  Milk

  920

  Beef and veal

  770

  Pigs, eggs and poultry

  700

  Fruit and vegetables

  290

  Others

  470

  UK taxpayers contribute to the entire EU budget rather than to specific programmes. Whilst it is possible to provide an illustrative estimate of the notional contribution to the FEOGA budget, it is not feasible to do so by commodity. However, the following table sets out the share of FEOGA spending by sector.

  CAP categories

  Share of expenditure (percentage)

  Arable crops

  43

  Sugar

  3

  Oils, fats and protein plants

  6

  Fruit and vegetables

  4

  Wine

  3

  Tobacco

  2

  Milk products

  5

  Meat, eggs and poultry

  18

  Various markets

  3

  Other operations

  3

  Rural development

  10

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letter to her dated 10 November from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Darren Pennington.[144640]
  255W
  Alun Michael
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State replied to my right hon. Friend's letter on 23 December 2003.

  Crop Areas
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will establish an independent inquiry into errors made by the Department in respect of the wheat area for this year's harvest. [143592]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The cause of the error in the estimation of this year's crop areas has already been identified. In using the IACS data to augment the census basis, the mistake was made of mixing up holdings and businesses. It was a simple mistake. A modification has been made to the computer program to ensure that it is not repeated in the future. The department will be working with its independent statistical advisors to improve the system and processes. In the circumstances there is no need to conduct a separate independent inquiry.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will impose penalties on her Department's staff responsible for supplying incorrect details of the wheat area for this year's harvest. [144404]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  A genuine error was made which was quickly corrected when spotted. The imposition of penalties is not appropriate in these circumstances. Defra operates a formal appraisal system for its staff which involves all aspects of their performance.

  Dee Cockle Regulation Order
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects the Dee Cockle Regulation Order to be implemented. [144780]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Defra and the Welsh Assembly Government will act jointly to make a single Regulating Order under the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 once the prospective grantee, the Environment Agency Wales, is in a position to submit a formal application for the order. The agency is in the process of obtaining written consents from landowners and it will forward an application when these are received.
  We will ensure that the application is processed as quickly as possible under the terms of the 1967 Act but the process can take up to two years.

  Environmental Taxation
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of GDP is raised in(a) the UK and (b) each other country belonging to the OECD as environmental taxation, (i) including and (ii) excluding taxation of energy. [143289]
  256W
  Mr. Morley
  The OECD's latest published figures for environmental taxation as a percentage of GDP are given in the following table. The environmental tax estimates include energy taxes but these are not published separately.

  Member country

  Environmental taxation as a percentage of GDP in 2001 for each OECD member country

  Australia

  1.93

  Austria

  3.01

  Belgium

  2.27

  Canada

  1.33

  Czech Republic

  2.93

  Denmark

  4.70

  Finland

  3.03

  France

  2.22

  Germany

  2.58

  Greece

  2.53

  Hungary

  2.72

  Iceland

  2.50

  Ireland

  2.36

  Italy

  Not available

  Japan

  1.74

  Korea

  3.40

  Luxembourg

  2.86

  Mexico

  1.75

  Netherlands

  3.65

  New Zealand

  1.57

  Norway

  3.05

  Poland

  1.95

  Portugal

  2.94

  Slovak Republic

  2.06

  Spain

  1.89

  Sweden

  2.80

  Switzerland

  2.20

  Turkey

  3.79

  United Kingdom

  2.85

  United States

  0.96

  Envirowise
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list services offered by Envirowise that are not available from the private sector; what steps she has taken to invite the private sector to undertake services offered by Envirowise; and when they were taken. [144577]

  Mr. Morley
  Envirowise provides a range of services to business to promote best practice in preventing and minimising waste in all its forms, reducing pollution and making the most effective use of resources. The programme provides the Environment and Energy Helpline; a dedicated website; best practice publications; and on-site visits. All of these services are provided free of charge to UK businesses.
  The programme helps companies to recognise the need to improve their efficiency, and gives them sufficient information to start taking action. Companies may then either build on this activity themselves, or engage private sector service providers.
  Envirowise services are delivered jointly by two private sector companies through a contract won in open tender, following an invitation to tender published in the Official Journal in August 1999. The contract requires more than 50 per cent. of the Programme to be sub-contracted, and the managing contractors use over

  257W
  200 other contractors each year. This includes over 80 specialist consultants on its Helpline panel, who are appointed through open tender every two years.

  Flood Protection
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 9 December,Official Report, column 378W, on flood protection, what the relationship of flood defence committees to internal drainage boards is. [145038]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency (EA) is the principal flood defence operating authority in England and Wales. Generally speaking, the EA is empowered under the Water Resources Act 1991 for managing flood risk arising from designated "main" rivers and the sea. The EA is also responsible for flood forecasting and flood warning dissemination, and for exercising a general supervision over matters relating to flood defence.
  Regional Flood Defence Committees in England and Wales are made up of Defra, EA and Local Authority appointed members, and they are responsible for undertaking flood defence activities on behalf of the Environment Agency.
  Internal drainage boards (IDBs) are statutory bodies, empowered under the Land Drainage Act 1991 to undertake flood defence works for watercourses which have not been designated as "main", in specified districts with special drainage needs.
  Although there are no formal relationships or guidance for membership between the RFDCs and IDBs, there is nothing to stop an individual member occupying a position on the committee of both an RFDC and an IDB in their area, and in some instances this is the case.

  Food Miles
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what studies

  Conventionally grown produce

  2000 (£)

  2001 (£)

  2002 (£)

  Indication of further processing

  Beef

  Farmgate value (a)

  £/kg

  1.69

  1.64

  1.70

  Retail value (b)

  £/kg

  3.80

  3.77

  3.84

  slaughtered, trimmed and cut

  Lamb

  Farmgate value (a)

  £/kg

  1.90

  1.97

  2.36

  Retail value (b)

  £/kg

  4.52

  4.78

  4.84

  slaughtered trimmed and cut

  Pork

  Farmgate value (a)

  £/kg

  0.95

  0.97

  0.94

  Retail value (b)

  £/kg

  2.00

  2.21

  2.26

  slaughtered, trimmed and cut

  Chicken

  Farmgate value (c)

  £/kg

  0.71

  0.70

  0.69

  Retail value (d)

  £/kg

  2.23

  2.27

  2.24

  slaughtered

  Turkey

  Farmgate value (c)

  £/kg

  1.30

  1.24

  1.13

  Retail value

  £/kg

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  slaughtered

  Bacon

  Farmgate value (a)

  £/

  0.95

  0.99

  0.96

  Retail value (h)

  £/kg

  3.10

  3.55

  3.54

  slaughtered, trimmed and cut

  Apples, dessert

  Farmgate value (e)

  £/kg

  0.35

  0.36

  0.45

  Retail value (g)

  £kg

  1.08

  1.17

  1.21

  packing and grading where off farm

  Potatoes

  Farmgate value (f)

  £/kg

  0.08

  0.11

  0.08

  Retail value (h)

  £/kg

  0.67

  0.41

  0.39

  packing and grading where off farm

  Carrots

  Farmgate value (f)

  £/kg

  0.28

  0.26

  0.18

  Retail value (h)

  £/kg

  n/a

  0.62

  0.55

  packing and grading where off farm

  Cauliflower

  Farmgate value (e)

  £/kg

  0.27

  0.28

  0.34

  Retail value (g)

  £/kg

  0.57

  0.69

  0.68

  packing and grading where off farm

  258W
  her Department has funded since 1997 into food miles; and what the conclusions and recommendations were. [144558]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Defra has commissioned a group of researchers, led by AEA Technology, to examine the validity of food miles as a quantitative measure of progress in the sustainable development of the farming and food industries. This research is expected to be completed in spring 2004.
  Defra has also contributed a small amount of funding, along with other stakeholders, to a Transport 2000 study to model various transport distribution scenarios for a 'basket' of three food products. The study examined whether a shift to sourcing these products more locally would lead to greater or fewer CO2 emissions in the supply chain overall. Transport 2000 has recently published the results of this work in "Wise Moves—exploring the relationship between food, transport and CO2".

  Food Prices
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average(a) farmgate and (b) retail price was of (i) one kilogram of (A) beef, (B) lamb, (C) pork, (D) chicken, (E) turkey, (F) bacon, (G) dessert apples, (H) potatoes, (I) carrots, (J) cauliflower, (K) peas, (L) runner beans, (ii) one pint of (x) milk, (y) cream and (z) yoghurt, (iii) one dozen eggs and (iv) one litre of (X) English wine and (Y) brandy in each year since 2000 for which figures are available, broken down by (1) organic and (2) conventionally produced foodstuffs. [144206]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 15 December 2003]: The farm gate and retail prices of conventionally grown foodstuffs for 2000 to 2002, where available, are shown in the table. Prices are not collected for English wine or brandy. Small quantities of cream and yoghurt are sold to the consumer at retail prices. The amount of processing taking place between farm gate and retail varies from commodity to commodity; an indication is given in the table. Farm gate prices include produce destined for highly processed food, which is normally lower quality and sells at a lower price.
  No further information is available for prices of organically produced food.
  259W

  Peas for processing

  Farmgate value (e)

  £/kg

  0.19

  0.20

  0.29

  Retail value (i)

  £/kg

  n/a

  1.17

  1.12

  packing and grading where off farm

  Runner beans

  Farmgate value (e)

  £/kg

  0.88

  0.79

  0.77

  Retail value

  £/kg

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  packing and grading where off farm

  Milk

  Farmgate value (j)

  £/pint

  0.10

  0.11

  0.10

  Retail value (g)

  £/pint

  0.19

  0.20

  0.23

  pasteurised. bottled and transport; shop and delivered

  Eggs

  Farmgate value (g)

  £ dozen

  0.53

  0.55

  0.56

  Retail value (g)

  £ dozen

  1.60

  1.53

  1.52

  packing and grading where off farm

  Source:

  (a) MLC, Defra

  (b) MLC for 2000, other years derived by applying RPI for the item to 2000 value

  (c) Average producer price (p/kg carcase weight). Source: Agriculture in the United Kingdom, Defra http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/publications/auk/default.asp

  (d) Chicken, roasting, fresh. Source: ONS

  (e) Average farmgate prices for crop years. Source: Basic Horticultural Statistics, Defra http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/publications/bhs/default.asp

  (f) Agriculture in the United Kingdom, Defra http://statistics.defra.gov. uk/esg/publications/auk/default.asp

  (g) ONS

  (h) Old white loose potatoes, not including pre-packed. Source: ONS

  (i) Frozen garden peas, price per 900–910g bag grossed up to £:kg. Source: ONS

  (j) MMBs, Defra

  Foot and Mouth
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much has been spent by her Department in investigating the validity of payment claims submitted by businesses to her Department for work undertaken in connection with the foot and mouth crisis. [145319]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 5 January 2004 ]: To date, and from information held centrally, the Department has spent £19.81 million on professional services investigating the validity of payment claims submitted by businesses for the £1.3 billion expenditure on goods, services and works arising out of the 2001 foot and mouth disease outbreak.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many invoices have been settled after the due date by her Department in relation to work undertaken by businesses in connection with the foot and mouth crisis; what the combined value was of the original invoices submitted; and how much interest has been paid on these settlements in accordance with the Late Payment of Debt Act 1998. [145320]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 5 January 2004]: The Department believes that, on the basis of the professional advice it has received, in almost all cases, no due date has arisen because Defra has legitimate grounds for withholding payments. This includes instances where the due date has not yet arisen because the businesses have not provided sufficient and necessary evidence to enable their charges to be verified.
  The Department's payment terms are the payment of valid invoices within 30 days of receipt and agreement of valid invoices for goods, services and works requested by the Department. The Department is disputing payment in those cases where it believes on the basis of the quantum, accounting, legal and technical advice it has received that it was overcharged for goods, services and works during the foot and mouth disease outbreak. In all other cases bar the one identified as follows, the Department believes it has paid businesses in
  260W
  accordance with contractually agreed terms for the goods, services and works provided in connection with the outbreak.
  The Department believes that the direct cost to the public sector of the expenditure on goods, services and works during the outbreak was £1.3 billion. The Department is still receiving invoices from contractors some 24 to 29 months after the outbreak in 2001. These are the subject of forensic examination and investigation.
  To date, the Department has received 11 claims for interest allegedly due on the late payment of commercial debts. These total £132,879.23. Applying the terms of the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 to these claims has resulted in the agreement and payment of £4,057.90 of the claimed sum. All claims are considered on the facts of that claim.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many invoices submitted by businesses to her Department for work undertaken in connection with the foot and mouth crisis have not yet been paid; what the total value is of these unpaid invoices; and how many invoices have been outstanding for a period of more than(a) 30 days, (b) six months, (c) one year and (d) two years. [145321]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 5 January 2004]: Information as to how many invoices submitted to businesses for work undertaken in connection with the foot and mouth disease outbreak have not yet been paid can be provided only at disproportionate cost for the following reasons: the facts of each case are not necessarily similar; some contractors issued few large value invoices; some contractors issued significant numbers of lower value invoices; other contractors submitted statements of account or applications for interim payment; some invoices are rejected in their entirety; other invoices are rejected in part; forensic examination of contractor accounts focuses on the valuation of the entire account.
  A large number of businesses received significant payments on account pending final verification of their charges. Other businesses were paid in full or partially

  261W
  paid in the honest belief at the time that their charges were valid only for subsequent examination and investigation to reveal that legitimate grounds existed and continue to exist for Defra seeking to recover these payments by way of restitutionary proceedings.
  Currently, the Department is withholding £55.698 million from businesses in connection with charges arising from the provision of goods services and works during the outbreak. This figure will increase as the Department is continuing to receive invoices from some contractors which the Department on the basis of forensic examination and investigation will not be accepting as valid.
  As the Department has paid businesses on the basis of the contractual terms agreed it does not believe there are any valid unpaid and outstanding invoices, submitted by businesses to the Department, for work undertaken in connection with the foot and mouth outbreak.
  The Department is disputing payment in those cases where it believes on the basis of the quantum, accounting, technical and legal advice it has received that it was overcharged for goods, services and works during the outbreak. In all other cases, the Department has paid businesses for the goods, services and works provided in connection with the outbreak in 2001.
  The Department understands from the Forum of Private Business that the All Party Parliamentary Small Business Group has, or is collecting, evidence that 20 or so contractors are still owed in excess of £10 million for goods, services and works claimed to have been provided during the outbreak in 2001. The Group has pledged it will write to the Department on these cases and Defra will respond once the evidence is to hand.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the average amount of time taken by her Department to investigate the validity of each payment request submitted by a business to her Department for work undertaken in connection with the foot and mouth crisis. [145322]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 5 January 2004]: I refer the hon. Member to Recommendations 12 and 13 of the National Audit Office Report into 'The 2001 Outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease'. The report can be found on the National Audit Office website at www.nao.gov.uk. I also refer the hon. Member to section (xiii) page 9 of the Fifth Report of Session 2002–03 on 'The 2001 Outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease', issued by the House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts on 5 March 2003. The Report, together with Proceedings of the Committee, Minutes of Evidence, and an Appendix is available at www.parliament.uk.
  The Department, along with other Departments in Civil Central Government, reports its payment performance annually to Parliament.
  262W
  The Department is unable to provide an estimate of the average amount of time taken to investigate the validity of each payment request submitted by a business to the Department for work undertaken in connection with the foot and mouth outbreak. The variable nature of the factors governing the processing of the accounts renders any average figure meaningless. These factors include but are not limited to the following:

  (i) the absence of any substantiating evidence on the part of some businesses including the supply of basic records evidencing the work done;

  (ii) some businesses refusing to co-operate with the Department in relation to the supply of such information, directly contributing to the time taken to process their accounts, and where such refusal has led to the Department valuing the account on the evidence available to it;

  (iii) some businesses seeking payment applying the incorrect contractual rates or being obliged to re-invoice Defra months, and in some cases years. after the original invalid charges;

  (iv) the Department is still receiving invoices for alleged work done some 2½ years after the foot and mouth disease outbreak;

  (v) the Department is unable to proscribe with certainty the timescales for forensic examination, investigation, litigation and alternative disputes resolution procedures.

  The Department has a public law duty to protect the public purse and will do so unfailingly in all circumstances where the evidence is sufficient and necessary to meet legal requirements in either a civil or criminal context.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will introduce vaccination as a means of preventing the spread of foot and mouth disease as part of the Foot and Mouth Contingency Plan. [144177]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Prophylactic vaccination remains prohibited under the new EU Directive 2003/85 on the control of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD). However, the Directive does give greater prominence to the potential use of emergency vaccination in the event of an outbreak.
  The Government's response to the independent inquiries into the 2001 FMD outbreak acknowledged that emergency vaccination would be considered as part of the control strategy from the start of any future outbreak of FMD, where measures additional to culling of susceptible animals on infected premises and dangerous contacts were needed. The latest version of Defra's FMD Contingency Plan includes details on the arrangements that are in place to allow for emergency vaccination in a future outbreak.

  Grocery Retailers
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the firm concentration ratios, adjusted for buying groups, are for grocery retailers in the European Union. [144027]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The latest available estimates of five firm concentration ratios for grocery retailers, adjusted for buying groups, are shown in the following table for individual EU member states and the EU as a whole.
  263W

  Five-firm concentration ratios in grocery retailing, adjusted to include buying groups, 1999

  Market share (percentage points)

  Austria

  58.6

  Belgium/Lux

  66.0

  Denmark

  76.6

  Finland

  70.5

  France

  64.7

  Germany

  52.5

  Greece

  33.5

  Ireland

  58.3

  Italy

  26.4

  Netherlands

  71.7

  Portugal

  67.0

  Spain

  63.7

  Sweden

  80.6

  UK

  56.2

  EU-15 (weighted average)

  60.5

  Source:

  London Economics

  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of UK farmers sold direct to retailers in the last month for which figures are available. [144028]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The information requested is not available.

  Hazardous Waste
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Transport on the change in heavy vehicle traffic with hazardous loads following the implementation of the Hazardous Waste Requirements of the Landfill Directive in July 2004. [144913]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend sees the Secretary of State for Transport frequently during which a range of topics is discussed. From July 2004, hazardous waste going to landfill will have to be treated to reduce its volume and/or its hazardous nature, facilitate its handling or enhance recovery. Over time, implementation of the Landfill Directive will also encourage greater wasteminimisation at source.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the impact of the Hazardous Waste Requirements of the Landfill Directive on residue disposal options for the metal recycling sector. [144914]

  Mr. Morley
  A number of very constructive meetings have been held with metals recycling interests to discuss disposal of residues. Those interests are also represented on the Hazardous Waste Forum. Options for dealing with residue disposal have been identified and these are being considered by the industry. As the Government is committed to reducing the UK's reliance on landfill, which makes little practical use of waste and is a missed opportunity to recover value from waste, it wishes to do all it can to encourage and support the recycling sector.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the top 20 producers of hazardous waste by mass; and what the extent is of their in-house disposal facilities. [144915]
  264W
  Mr. Morley
  The top twenty producers of hazardous waste by mass in England and Wales are listed below. The amounts involved are of waste consigned and therefore not going to in-house facilities. Data on waste going to in-house facilities is only held by the Environment Agency in an aggregated form.Airbus UK, Chester
  Baker Refractories, Worksop, Nottinghamshire
  Beckton Gas Works, London
  Blueprint, Portsmouth
  Castle Waste Services Ltd, Derbyshire
  Centre of Excellence, Rainham, Essex
  Fine Organics Ltd, Middlesbrough
  Former Gasworks, Cambridge
  Imco Recycling UK Ltd, Swansea
  Kane Haulage Ltd, Felsted
  Lattice Property, Bradford
  Milford Haven Dock, Dyfed
  Pembroke Dock, Dyfed
  Rugby Cement, Rugby
  Safety Kleen UK Ltd, Dinnington, Sheffield
  Solvent Resource Management Ltd, North Shields, Tyne and Wear
  Solvent Resource Management Ltd, Morecambe
  Taylor Woodrow Construction, Newcastle upon Tyne
  Waste Recycling Group, Sheffield
  Wyeth-Ayerst Ltd, Gosport, Hants

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the actions taken to meet the hazardous waste requirements of the Landfill Directive by(a) her Department and (b) those departments which previously held responsibility. [144916]

  Mr. Morley
  Actions taken by this Department and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to implement the 1999 Landfill Directive in England on diverting waste from landfill include:preparation and issue of Waste Strategy 2000;
  six rounds of public consultation on aspects of the Landfill Directive;
  setting up four stakeholders groups—including the Hazardous Waste Forum, and the Landfill Directive Implementation Group which is looking at the implementation of the Council Decision on waste acceptance criteria;
  the Hazardous Waste Forum has published an action plan on the reduction and environmentally sound management of hazardous waste;
  guidance material issued by the Environment Agency;
  organising seminars and taking part in those organised by others (e.g. the Environmental Services Association and the Chemical Industries Association);
  bilateral meetings with a wide range of industry and other interests;
  commissioning research and other projects (either direct or though the Hazardous Waste Forum or the Environment Agency);
  setting up the Waste and Resources Action Programme to develop markets for recycled materials (so diverting waste away from landfill);
  introducing the Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund to support projects that use waste materials (e.g. construction and demolition waste) to replace primary aggregates.
  265W
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action the Government is taking to ensure that small businesses do not dispose of hazardous waste in the domestic waste stream following implementation of the Hazardous Waste Requirements of the Landfill Directive. [144917]

  Mr. Morley
  The Hazardous Waste Forum is producing an action plan that includes educating waste producers on their responsibilities. The Environment Agency is responsible for regulating waste legislation and it too will seek to ensure that all producers of hazardous waste act in a responsible manner.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of hazardous waste was non-reactive in the last year for which figures are available. [144918]

  Mr. Morley
  This information is not available. The Environment Agency collects and records hazardous waste information that is provided by site operators. The Special Waste Regulations 1996 (as amended) do not require producers of special or hazardous waste to record whether or not waste being produced or disposed of is non-reactive.

  Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the delay to the start of the landfill allowance trading scheme until 2005–06, including reference to the reasons for the delay; what assessment was made of the impact of the delay on the ability of the United Kingdom to meet the targets in the Landfill Directive; and what further steps have been taken to form a policy on whether or not to fine waste disposal authorities that fail to meet their landfill allowance targets. [143090]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 9 December 2003]: The decision to delay the implementation of the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme until 2005 which was announced by the Minister of State for Local and Regional Government on 19 November 2003, was made to help reduce spending pressures on local government in 2004–05. It does, however, reflect the views of local authorities which we have received through our consultation on the implementation of the Scheme, that they needed more time to prepare for this new Scheme which is a significant departure from their normal operations. The delay in starting the scheme will mean that waste disposal authorities will have to make steeper annual reductions in the amount of biodegradable waste they landfill in order to meet the first target year of 2010 but they will have more time to plan how to do this.
  Policy on the remaining issues included in the consultation on the Scheme will be decided once all of the responses have been fully analysed and will be announced in the New Year.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the Government will set a ceiling on trading prices for landfill allowances. [144912]
  266W
  Mr. Morley
  No. The Government does not consider it appropriate to set a maximum price for allowances as this may lead to market distortion. However, the financial penalty for holding fewer allowances than the amount of biodegradable waste landfilled will act as a de-facto ceiling because local authorities are unlikely to purchase allowances if they cost more than the price of paying the penalty.

  Livestock Disposal
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on progress towards the setting up of the livestock disposal scheme indicating what level of interest there has been in participating; and what particular measures are being considered to include the pig and poultry industry. [144929]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  It is still the intention that the National Fallen Stock Scheme should begin early in the new year. It is too early to judge the likely interest in participation, but the scheme has the full backing of the farming organisations and it should save money for farmers who would otherwise have to make their own disposal arrangements. Conditions for the pig and poultry industry will need to reflect the particular requirements of the intensive sector.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on what business form the Livestock Disposal Agency will take; and what relationship exists between the Government and the National Farmers' Union. [144930]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The National Fallen Stock Scheme will be run by a Company limited by guarantee, initially owned by Defra and the Devolved Administrations. Its long term structure will need further discussion with the livestock industry as the intention is to transfer ownership in due course. Both the Government and the National Farmers' Union are committed to a partnership approach to developing and running the Scheme.

  Orchard Fruit Survey
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the results were of the Orchard Fruit Survey, in hectares of fruit trees, for each of the six years to July 2003. [143919]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 15 December 2003]: The table shows the total tree area (including apples, pears, plums, cherries and other top fruit) of the Orchard Fruit Surveys 1998–2003.

  Orchard Fruit Survey, England and Wales

  Total tree area (hectares)

  1998

  21,981

  1999

  21,483

  2000

  20,823

  2001

  21,104

  2002

  18,739

  2003

  17,671

  Parasiticides
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment her Department has made of the(a) use and (b) resistance to anthelmintics in the UK; and if she will make a statement on (i) anthelmintics, (ii) flukicides and (iii) similar Pharmacy and Merchants List drugs being under veterinary dispensing control. [145222]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Data on use of veterinary medicines is not normally collected, although the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA) were involved in a survey on liver flukes and the use of flukicides in August 2002. The VLA have also conducted a number of related investigations over the past 20 years as part of MAFF and Defra funded research into resistance to anthelmintics. These have found that in the UK resistance is most commonly seen in sheep and goat nemotodes. Defra is currently funding a research project entitled "The development of computerised models for use in integrated parasite control strategies designed to optimise anthelmintic usage".
  In addition, the sheep industry has been involved in producing some short-term strategies to slow the development of anthelmintic resistance in internal parasites of sheep in the UK and a leaflet on the subject is on the Defra website www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/diseases/control/parasite_control.htm
  In the sheep industry, anthelmintics are widely used because diseases such as parasitic gastroenteritis are economically important and avoidance of anthelmintic resistance is a high priority. The strategies aim to reduce use by means of more targeted applications, which at the same time may limit the development of resistance.
  Before a marketing authorisation for a veterinary medicinal product is granted, applicants must submit data which among other requirements must demonstrate that the product is efficacious under the proposed dose regime. This is scientifically assessed and potential future resistance is considered as part of this assessment. There are currently some 300 medicinal products authorised as anthelmintics and an additional 11 which also are authorised as flukicides. Less than 60 per cent. of these are supplied under the Pharmacy and Merchants List. There is no evidence that the route of supply of individual products has any effect on resistance.

  Pesticides
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what(a) minutes or other records were taken and (b) decisions were made at the Pesticide Safety Directorate stakeholder meetings on (i) 13 October and (ii) 24 October. [146089]

  Alun Michael
  Meetings were arranged with key stakeholders to discuss the issues raised by the informal consultation exercise on public access to information on pesticide use.
  Attendees were invited to give their views and suggestions concerning the type of system that might be introduced to notify residents of forthcoming spray activities (including the form any notification would take and the period before use when notification should
  268W
  be given). They were also asked how access might be provided to those wishing to see records of past spray activities.
  Notes were taken of the views of attendees and the practical suggestions they made. These are being considered, alongside the written submissions made in response to the informal consultation.

  Plant Imports
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether she will seek(a) sanctions against and (b) compensation from (i) the Netherlands and (ii) other nations found to have failed adequately to check the infectivity of plants exported to the UK for commercial sale. [143664]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 11 December 2003]: A Defra plant health official and an industry nominee recently made a visit to the Netherlands, at the invitation of the Dutch plant health authorities, to see how new EC measures against "Phytophthora ramorum" were being implemented. The visit has been the subject of misleading reports in the press. Boskoop, the main venue for sale of nursery stock in the Netherlands, was found to be fully compliant. At Aalsmeer, which is primarily a flower market, some consignments of plants were losing their plant passports when they were split up and sold on; a shortcoming which the Dutch plant heath authorities have agreed to address. Our surveillance of plants moving in trade, including those from the Netherlands, is being stepped up and plants found not to comply will continue to be destroyed.
  Collaboration between Forestry Commission scientists and their Dutch and German counterparts helped in 2001 to establish the link between dying trees in California and a new but minor disease on rhododendrons in Europe.
  We do not know how or where the pathogen arrived in Europe. Of the 330 UK findings, 70 per cent. have been on plants originating within this country, rather than imports. I do not believe it is appropriate at this stage to seek sanctions or compensation from the other countries with whom we are working to deal with this threat to European trees. The first recourse for someone who has received infected plants should be their supplier.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action her Department will take to protect(a) garden centres and (b) growers from imported plants infected with the tree fungus Phytophthora ramorum. [143667]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 11 December 2003]: Measures are already in place to help prevent garden centres and growers from importing plant material susceptible to the pathogen Phytophthora ramorum. These included, banning the import of host plants from affected areas of the USA and extending current controls on imported oak wood to include wood that comes from host trees in affected areas in the USA. All other susceptible plant material imported into the UK from third countries must be accompanied by a

  269W
  phytosanitary certificate. For trade within the EC, all consignments of rhododendron and viburnum must be accompanied by a plant passport.
  The European Community's Standing Committee on Plant Health recently reviewed these measures and agreed that they should continue. Commission officials are now working on a draft to strengthen the current Decision. In addition, the UK will be stepping up its inspection of plant material entering the UK to ensure it complies with import arrangements. Any consignment entering the UK that is found not to possess the required documentation is destroyed.

  River Trent
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the progress of the fluvial strategy for the River Trent. [145207]

  Mr. Morley
  I understand from the Environment Agency that they expect to consult on a draft of the River Trent Strategy in early spring 2004, and that they have provided you directly with a detailed progress report.

  Rural Services
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the(a) primary and (b) secondary legislation which would have to be amended fully to implement the proposals contained in Lord Haskin's report on the Delivery of Rural Services. [145788]

  Alun Michael
  The Secretary of State set out the Government's initial response to Lord Haskins' Review of Rural Delivery in November 2003. She said that she hoped to publish a detailed implementation plan for the proposals in the spring. The work being undertaken to develop that plan includes consideration of the detailed legal implications of the proposals, and changes to legislation will need to be addressed as part of the implementation plan.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the Government are on target to ensure that 95 per cent. of all sites of special scientific interest are in a favourable condition by 2010. [145250]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  English Nature completed the first six year cycle of condition assessments for every SSSI in England in 2003, launching its report on this work on 15 December. This contains a wealth of information on the factors affecting SSSI condition. This information base is essential in setting a course for future progress towards the target. We aim to do this by the spring of next year, and to assess future progress against that course thereafter.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to change the number of sites of special scientific interest in England. [145251]
  270W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  The notification of sites of special scientific interest is entirely a matter for English Nature in the exercise of its statutory functions. Significant improvements to the legislative framework brought about by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 now enable English Nature to also extend sites and to de-notify sites where they are no longer of special interest.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what funding was available for the(a) protection and (b) promotion of sites of special scientific interest in each of the past three years; and how much will be available for (i) 2003–04 and (ii) 2004–05. [145252]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Conservation of sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs) depends on raising awareness of issues and fostering partnerships with 32,000 owner/occupiers. A wide range of programmes contribute to the protection of SSSIs, including agri-environment schemes, water company investment, Government Departments' estate management and grant funding of National Park Authorities. It is not practicable to provide a breakdown of spending on SSSIs as specifically requested.
  However, English Nature's direct expenditure on management agreements and maintenance of SSSIs is reported in its annual reports. The figures, including for those that are also National Nature Reserves, are £11.8 million in 2000–01, £13.5 million in 2001–02 and £14 million in 2002–03. Its forecast spend in 2003–04 is £15.9 million. Plans for 2004–05 have not been settled.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the sites of special scientific interest in the Vale of York. [145253]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The list of sites of special scientific interest, either wholly or partly in the Vale of York is as follows:

  SSSI Name

  SSSI Area in Vale of York (ha)

  Total SSSI Area (ha)

  Aubert Ings

  10.68

  10.68

  Birkham Wood

  26.20

  29.35

  Bishop Monkton Ings

  10.32

  38.13

  Dalby Bush Fen

  1.61

  7.50

  Farnham Mires

  10.32

  10.32

  Gormire

  54.48

  54.48

  Hack Fall Wood

  0.13

  42.98

  Kirk Deighton

  4.03

  4.03

  Newsome Bridge Quarry

  1.57

  1.57

  North York Moors

  73.65

  44,082.40

  Pilmoor

  45.02

  45.02

  Ripon Parks

  26.11

  129.74

  River Ure Bank, Ripon Parks

  0.05

  1.74

  Shaws Gate Quarry

  0.83

  1.45

  Snape Hill Quarry

  0.58

  0.58

  Upper Dunsforth Carrs

  10.09

  10.09

  Total

  275.67

  —

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government's policy on sites of special scientific interest. [145254]
  271W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  The protection of over one million hectares of England's finest wildlife and geological heritage in over 4,000 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) is an essential component of the Government's approach to conserving biodiversity, as set out in "Working with the Grain of Nature"—the England biodiversity strategy.
  The wide range of factors affecting the SSSIs mean that their condition is a clear indicator of success in achieving sustainable development. That is why their condition is also an indicator of progress in the UK Sustainable Development Strategy "A Better Quality of Life", Defra's own sustainable development strategy "Foundations for our Future", and the Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food. The Government has a target to bring 95 per cent. of SSSIs into favourable condition by 2010, and is working with English Nature and others to bring this about.

  Substitute Fuels
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what substances are prohibited from qualifying as substitute fuels under the Environment Agency's Substitute Fuels Protocol; what changes are planned to the list of qualifying substances; and if she will make a statement [142346]

  Mr. Morley
  An operator of an industrial installation or plant wishing to burn a fuel of a type not within the terms of the current operating permit or authorisation has to apply to the Environment Agency for a variation to allow trials to be conducted. Each variation application is determined by the Environment Agency on a case-by-case basis, and the Substitute Fuels Protocol provides guidance to its staff and operators on the application process.
  Under the current version of the protocol, trials of a fuel containing the following should not be allowed:

  (a) a radioactive material or radioactive waste as defined in Sections 1 and 2 respectively of the Radioactive Substances Act 1993; or

  (b) an explosive including: propellants, cartridges, or bombs, or explosive material extracted from them or explosive-contaminated material from their manufacture or decommissioning.

  Additionally, trials of a fuel to which any of the following substances has been added should not be allowed:
  polychlorinated biphenyls;
  pentachlorophenol;
  pharmaceuticals;
  pesticides;
  biocides; and
  iodine compounds.
  The Environment Agency plans to undertake a full public consultation on proposed revisions to the Substitute Fuels Protocol. When the consultation document is published within the next few weeks, it will be available for comment for three months. The protocol may then be revised, taking into account the comments received during the consultation period.

  Sudden Oak Death
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has made to her counterparts in EU member states about the recent UK outbreak of sudden oak death. [143606]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Dialogue on "Phytophthora ramorum" takes place between officials on a regular basis and particularly during discussion in the European Community's Standing Committee on Plant Health. It was as the result of collaboration between UK, Dutch and German plant health services that the risks were identified and emergency measures against the introduction and spread of "Phytophthora ramorum" introduced throughout the EU in November 2002. These measures were reviewed by the Standing Committee on 11 December. Following the findings of the disease in tree species the UK made very clear its concerns about the spread of this disease and agreement was reached for the control measures to continue. Commission officials are now working on a draft proposal to strengthen the current Decision.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with the Plant Health Laboratory concerning the recent UK outbreak of sudden oak death. [143607]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The plant health group at Defra's Central Science Laboratory is an important part of the UK's plant health service. The Laboratory confirmed the first finding of "Phytophthora ramorum" in the UK in April 2002. Their scientific assessment of risk and input into discussions on exclusion, eradication and containment is a continuous process and has proved invaluable in formulating our views on this particular disease since the risk was first identified in 2001. They are also involved in or leading many of the research projects which will help the development of plant health policy, risk management, and decisions on action taken. In many aspects of this work they collaborate closely with the Forest Research Agency.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the origins of the recent UK outbreak of sudden oak death. [143608]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Phytophthora ramorum was first described as a new species in October 2001 and first found in the UK in April 2002. Surveys are being conducted to establish how widespread the disease is and this may give an indication of how many years it may have been present. There have been over 300 outbreaks of Phytophthora ramorum found in England and Wales, mostly on rhododendrons and viburnums. In 70 per cent. of these cases the plants were of UK origin. In most of the other cases plants had been imported from other EC member states. In each of the cases on trees, there had already been findings of the disease nearby on plants of the rhododendron family.
  The current scientific view is that the pathogen was probably introduced separately to California and to Europe from its place of origin, possibly the Far East.

  273W
  Investigations of past imports are continuing but it is unlikely that the original source, or the time and place of introduction, will be identified with certainty.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures are being taken to prevent the destruction of Britain's oak trees from indigenous fungal diseases. [143512]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Fortunately, there are only a few indigenous tree diseases which can affect oak trees to any significant extent. The main one is known as oak dieback, a complex disease in which a number of damaging agents interact to bring about a deterioration in tree condition. The Forestry Commission's Forest Research Agency is participating in a wide ranging European research programme which aims to gain new insights into the disease. The principal effort is being directed towards understanding the importance of the killing of fine roots by fungi in the genus Phytophthora. Further details are given in the commission's information note Dieback of Pendunculate Oak' which can be seen on the commission's website, www.forestry.gov.uk.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what mechanisms regulate garden centres and horticultural activities in respect of the control of the phytophthora ramorum fungus and the protection of keystone tree species; and what emergency measures are being taken to prevent the import of diseases affecting trees. [143515]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Plant Health Order (Phytophthora ramorum) (England) (No. 2) Order 2002, implementing EC emergency measures, came into force on 1 November 2002. Plants of susceptible species moving within the EC must meet plant passporting requirements and member states have been required to carry out surveys to help detect the spread of the disease.
  Defra's Plant Health and Seeds Inspectors are undertaking checks at nurseries and garden centres known to trade in susceptible species. If infected plants are found in nurseries or garden centres during these inspections or surveys the legislation allows Inspectors to serve notice requiring the material to be destroyed along with any plants of susceptible species within 2 metres. Susceptible plants within 10 metres are placed on hold for a period to ascertain whether the disease is present before they can be moved.

  Veterinary Surgeons
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) large animal and (b) small animal veterinary surgeons practise in the UK. [146094]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  There is no such thing as a large or small animal vet as all veterinary surgeons are qualified to deal with any type of animal. At the last count (March 2003) there were approximately 12,000 veterinary surgeons in full time practice in the UK.
  In April 2003 The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS), submitted evidence to the EFRA Select Committee inquiry into Vets arid Veterinary
  274W
  services which showed that there are 2,375 main veterinary practices in the UK, of which 964 (41 per cent.) were farm practices.
  In the 2002 Manpower survey of how veterinary time was devoted to different areas of practice, it was reported that vets in general practice devoted 80.1 per cent. of their time to small animals, 5 per cent. to horses, 6.7 per cent. to cattle, 1.3 per cent. to sheep, 0.3 to pigs and 0.1 to poultry.

  Warm Front Programme
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will extend the entitlement to central heating installation under the Warm Front scheme when a heating system still operates but is inadequate. [145683]

  Mr. Morley
  Following recent reviews of Warm Front and a stakeholder event held in November 2003, we are considering the options for the future format of the Scheme. This includes consideration of the rules surrounding boiler replacements.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has made to the Treasury regarding the adequacy of funding proposals for the Warm Front programme. [145759]

  Mr. Morley
  Future funding of the Warm Front scheme will be considered in 2004 as part of the normal Government Spending Round process.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress she is making on improving the Warm Front scheme to combat fuel poverty. [145001]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Following recent reviews of Warm Front and a stakeholder event held in November, we are now in the process of considering the options for the future format of Warm Front.
  We expect to make decisions on the future form of the scheme during early 2004.

  Waste and Resources Action Programme
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on ways in which the Waste and Resources Action Programme has contributed to the reduction of global warming. [143285]

  Mr. Morley
  The Waste and Resources Action Programme's aim is to promote sustainable waste management by working to create stable and efficient markets for recycled materials and products and removing the barriers to waste minimisation, re-use and recycling.
  Attributing reductions in global warming (reductions in greenhouse gas emissions) to increases in recycling rate is an extremely complex area of research due to the number of variables to be taken into account. However, preliminary research undertaken by the Waste and Resources Action Programme indicates that using secondary materials (recycling) results in substantial energy savings when compared with production using primary materials. This initial assessment also suggests

  275W
  that if 30 per cent. of municipal solid waste is recycled in 2010 a reduction of approximately 10–15 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent gas could be achieved in the world.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many people are employed by the Waste and Resources Action Programme; and what additional recruitment is planned. [142592]

  Mr. Morley
  The Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) currently employs 73 people, the majority of whom work on its core market development remit to promote sustainable waste management and to create stable and efficient markets for recycled materials and products.
  In May 2003 WRAP'S remit was extended in England, as part of Government's response to the Strategy Unit report "Waste Not, Want Not", to include a household waste minimisation programme; an organics market development programme to provide material specific support and investment to the composting sector; the development of a kerbside recycling advisory service to local authorities and a targeted waste awareness programme combining national and local elements.
  As a result of these new programmes, recruitment plans will take WRAP to a projected full-time equivalent headcount figure of up to 140 by mid 2004. The increase in staff resources is in proportion to the increase in Government funding allocated to WRAP.

  Waste Management
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the 47th Report of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union, on European Union Waste Management Policy, and on its recommendations. [144576]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government are currently considering the report on European Union Waste Management Policy and will respond in due course.

  Wessex Flood Defence Committee
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total budget for the Wessex Flood Defence Committee is for financial year 2003–04. [145763]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency is required to arrange for its flood defence functions, except for certain financial ones, to be carried out by Regional Flood Defence Committees (RFDCs). The RFDC may arrange for all or any of these functions to be carried out by Local Flood Defence Committees (LFDCs) under a scheme approved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  I understand from the agency that the total budget for the LFDCs overseen by the Wessex RFDC for the financial year 2003–04 is £27.2 million.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much the Chairman of the Wessex Flood Defence Committee 276W
  received in (a) pay and (b) reimbursement of expenses in 2003–04; and what overseas trips he undertook on official business in 2003–04. [145766]

  Mr. Morley
  The previous Chairman of the Wessex Regional Flood Defence Committee (RFDC) received the following amounts, from the beginning of the current financial year (1 April 2003) to the end of his term of appointment on 30 June 2003:

  (a) pay: £3,797.49

  (b) expenses: £981.62

  No overseas trips were undertaken on Environment Agency business.
  The current Chairman of the Wessex RFDC has received the following amounts since his appointment began on 1 July 2003:

  (a) pay: £9,627.16 (including £2,032.18 in respect of his Chairmanship of Somerset Local Flood Defence Committee (LFDC) until 6 October 2003)

  (b) expenses £1,882.80 (some of which relates to Somerset LFDC duties)

  No overseas trips were undertaken on Environment Agency business.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Asylum Seekers
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many asylum seekers aged under 18 are in the care of social services, broken down by local authority. [144974]

  Margaret Hodge
  Information is not collected centrally in relation to all types of asylum seekers aged under 18. However information is available in relation to unaccompanied asylum seeking children (UASC).
  The information in respect of UASC is shown for 2002, the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Unaccompanied asylum seeking children looked after at 31 March 2002 aged under 18 by local authority

  Local authority

  Number

  England

  2,200

  Barking and Dagenham

  110

  Barnet

  25

  Barnsley

  0

  Bath and North East Somerset

  —

  Bedfordshire

  —

  Bexley

  10

  Birmingham

  10

  Blackburn and Darwen

  0

  Blackpool

  0

  Bolton

  0

  Bournemouth

  0

  Bracknell Forest

  —

  Bradford

  0

  Brent

  60

  Brighton and Hove

  —

  Bristol

  —

  Bromley

  5

  Buckinghamshire

  —

  Bury

  —

  Calderdale

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  10

  277W

  Camden

  55

  Cheshire

  0

  City of London

  —

  Cornwall

  0

  Coventry

  0

  Croydon

  235

  Cumbria

  0

  Darlington

  0

  Derby

  —

  Derbyshire

  —

  Devon

  0

  Doncaster

  0

  Dorset

  —

  Dudley

  —

  Durham

  0

  Ealing

  10

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  —

  East Sussex

  —

  Enfield

  25

  Essex

  5

  Gateshead

  0

  Gloucestershire

  —

  Greenwich

  35

  Hackney

  —

  Halton

  —

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  90

  Hampshire

  —

  Haringey

  95

  Harrow

  15

  Hartlepool

  0

  Havering

  10

  Herefordshire

  0

  Hertfordshire

  —

  Hillingdon

  155

  Hounslow

  15

  Isle of Wight

  —

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  Islington

  80

  Kensington and Chelsea

  75

  Kent

  195

  Kingston upon Hull

  —

  Kingston upon Thames

  —

  Kirklees

  —

  Knowsley

  0

  Lambeth

  120

  Lancashire

  0

  Leeds

  —

  Leicester

  —

  Leicestershire

  —

  Lewisham

  35

  Lincolnshire

  —

  Liverpool

  —

  Luton

  10

  Manchester

  5

  Medway Towns

  0

  Merton

  10

  Middlesbrough

  0

  Milton Keynes

  10

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  —

  Newham

  50

  Norfolk

  15

  North East Lincs

  5

  North Lincolnshire

  0

  North Somerset

  0

  North Tyneside

  —

  North Yorkshire

  —

  Northamptonshire

  0

  Northumberland

  0

  Nottingham

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  Oldham

  0

  Oxfordshire

  25

  278W

  Peterborough

  0

  Plymouth

  0

  Poole

  —

  Portsmouth

  —

  Reading

  —

  Redbridge

  30

  Redcar and Cleveland

  0

  Richmond upon Thames

  35

  Rochdale

  0

  Rotherham

  0

  Rutland

  0

  Salford

  0

  Sandwell

  —

  Sefton

  —

  Sheffield

  5

  Shropshire

  0

  Slough

  10

  Solihull

  —

  Somerset

  0

  South Gloucestershire

  —

  South Tyneside

  0

  Southampton

  —

  Southend

  0

  Southwark

  50

  St. Helens

  0

  Staffordshire

  —

  Stockport

  —

  Stockton on Tees

  0

  Stoke-on-Trent

  —

  Suffolk

  —

  Sunderland

  0

  Surrey

  20

  Sutton

  5

  Swindon

  —

  Tameside

  0

  Telford and Wrekin

  —

  Thurrock

  40

  Torbay

  0

  Tower Hamlets

  0

  Trafford

  —

  Wakefield

  5

  Walsall

  0

  Waltham Forest

  40

  Wandsworth

  10

  Warrington

  —

  Warwickshire

  10

  West Berkshire

  0

  West Sussex

  125

  Westminster

  55

  Wigan

  0

  Wiltshire

  —

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  0

  Wirral

  0

  Wokingham

  0

  Wolverhampton

  0

  Worcestershire

  0

  York

  0

  Notes:

  1. All figures rounded to the nearest five

  2. '—'Indicates number between one and five that has been suppressed for reasons of confidentiality

  3. Table excludes any children looked after under a series of short term placements

  Source:
  CLA100 return

  Children in Care
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children aged up to three months entered local authority care in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [141835]

  Margaret Hodge
  The figures available provide a snapshot at March 31 2002. At 31 March 2002 there were 390 children aged nought to three months looked after by local authorities in England.
  Data for 2003 is currently being evaluated and will be available in March 2004.

  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average age of a child entering local authority care was in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [141838]

  Margaret Hodge
  The figures available provide a snapshot at 31 March 2002. The average age of the children looked after by local authorities at 31 March 2002 is 10 years and 6 months. Data for 2003 is currently being evaluated and will be available in March 2004.

  Adoption
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of adoption placements were terminated within the first year in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [143349]

  Margaret Hodge
  In the year ending 31 March 2002, 7 per cent. of placements for adoption ended without the making of an adoption order.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps are being taken to reduce administrative delays in the system for placing children for adoption. [143363]

  Margaret Hodge
  The National Adoption Standards for England have set timescales to ensure that each looked after child has a plan for permanence agreed at the four month statutory review, and where adoption is the plan, timescales for finding an adoptive family.
  The Adoption Register for England and Wales has been set up as a tool for helping to match children in need of adoption with approved adopters. It has been fully operational in England since April 2002 and in Wales since August 2002.
  The Government are committed to supporting local adopter recruitment activity, and has developed an Adopter Recruitment Toolkit for adoption agencies. The Government continues to support national recruitment activity through National Adoption Week. The Government made a further £60,000 available to support National Adoption Week 2003 following a grant of £60,000 in 2002 and £50,000 in 2001.
  Since 2001, adoption work in the county courts and above has been centralised in specialist Adoption Centres throughout England and Wales. The objective of specialist adoption centres is to improve the service for everyone involved in adoption by dealing with contested and uncontested cases quickly and efficiently in centres with specialist adoption judges and staff.
  280W
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many adoption placements have been completed in each local authority during each of the last five years. [143364]

  Margaret Hodge
  The table showing the number of looked after children adopted in each local authority in England, during the years ending 31 March 1998 to 2002, has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children are awaiting adoption in each local authority area. [143365]

  Margaret Hodge
  The table showing the number of looked after children in England recorded on the Adoption Register for England and Wales who are awaiting a match with prospective adoptive parents at 10 December 2003, has been placed in the Library.

  Antisocial Behaviour
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what provisions have been made to include education programmes in strategies designed to cope with anti-social behaviour. [144093]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Education-related programmes play a crucial part in our drive to tackle anti-social behaviour in three ways.
  The first is through the school curriculum, where pupils learn about socially responsible behaviour as part of Citizenship education. This is a statutory subject in secondary schools. Schools receive guidance on helping pupils to understand the impact of anti-social behaviour and deal with it assertively.
  The second is through a range of measures to reduce truancy, improve pupil behaviour in schools and reinforce parental responsibility for their children's behaviour in schools. They include national truancy sweeps, fast track to prosecution for truancy, in-school Learning Support Units, multi-agency Behaviour and Education Support Teams, key workers for children at risk of crime, police in schools and positive activity programmes in the school holidays. In addition the Anti-Social Behaviour Act, which comes into force at the end of February, will introduce penalty notices for truancy, parenting contracts for truancy and parenting contracts and orders for bad behaviour in schools.
  The third is through services for young people beyond the school. The Connexions service provides access to personal development opportunities to broaden horizons and develop talents. The Youth service develops young people's ability to make responsible choices and engage constructively with their community. Both services help young people to develop their ability to cope with the issues which affect them and to avoid falling into anti-social behaviour.

  Broadband
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on progress on the extension of broadband connection to(a) primary and (b) secondary schools. [144935]
  281W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Prime Minister announced in November 2002 that all schools should be connected to broadband by 2006.
  There is good progress towards meeting this commitment. The most recent broadband connectivity statistics, from the end August 2003, reveal that 42 per cent. of all schools in England were connected to broadband at 2Megabits per second or faster (Mbps). 91 per cent. of secondary schools and 34 per cent. of primary schools were connected to broadband at this time.

  CAFCASS
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which member of the CAFCASS Board has refused to resign. [144973]

  Margaret Hodge
  Judy Weleminsky is the member of the CAFCASS Board who declined to resign.

  Child Care
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the definition is of approved child care. [144708]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 18 December 2003]: The Tax Credits Act 2002 allows parents using approved child care to claim for help with the costs of that child care through the tax credit system. Details of the types of care that are approved for this purpose can be found in the Inland Revenue leaflet—"WCT5—Help with the costs of child care". Copies of the leaflet can be found in the House of Commons Library.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many parents make use of approved child care. [145446]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 5 January 2004]: In 2002 the Department published the Repeat Study of Parental Demand for Childcare. This provides information about the use of early years and child care providers by parents with children aged 14 and under in England.
  Just over half of families (52 per cent. or 2.76 million) had used either early years education or some other formal child care provider (registered childminders, creche/nursery provider, out of school clubs and holiday schemes) in the past year. Almost a third (32 per cent.) reported using this type of provision in the past week.

  Child Protection
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how he proposes to recruit inspectors for departments concerned with child protection; and who will pay for them. [145027]

  Margaret Hodge
  My right hon. Friend is not responsible for the recruitment of inspectors. Recruitment and payment of inspectors are matters for the bodies which employ them.

  Child Trust Fund
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what discussions he has had 282W
  with financial companies about the assistance they can provide to schools to improve financial literacy, with particular reference to the child trust fund; [145712]
  (2) if he will increase the amount of financial education given to children in the national curriculum, with particular regard to work related to the child trust fund; [145714]
  (3) what discussions his Department has had with teachers' unions about the introduction of child trust funds and the need for increased provision of financial education in schools. [145718]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department has had discussions with a range of companies about supporting schools to improve numeracy and financial literacy, but none specifically in relation to the child trust fund. Personal finance education is covered in the curriculum as part of the Personal, Social and Health Education (PSHE) and Citizenship framework, and through subjects such as mathematics. Guidance issued in July 2000 encourages schools to involve local banks and building societies who may be able to provide resources or advice.
  It is for schools to determine the amount of time to be given to specific topics within the curriculum and the Department has no plans to recommend to schools that the amount of financial education should be increased.
  No discussions have been held between the Department and teachers' unions about the introduction of child trust funds and increased provision for financial education.

  Children and Young People's Unit
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on his joint working with the Home Office's Children and Young People's Unit and the development and delivery of shared initiatives with particular reference to the Participation Fund; and how such funds have affected Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East. [144768]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Children and Young People's Unit (CYPU)—previously a Unit located within the DIES but reporting to a Home Office Minister—is now part of the new DfES Children, Young People and Families Directorate, reporting to me. The valuable work pioneered by the CYPU in developing cross-Government initiatives, in supplying local partnerships and in involving children and young people in policy development will be incorporated in the work of my new Directorate.
  The Participation Fund is a small fund designed to support the development of mechanisms for the consultation and involvement of children and young people in England. Part of this budget is devoted to a Consultation Fund, which I launched in July this year. Its purpose is to provide opportunities for children and young people, in particular those in hard-to-reach groups, to be consulted on policies and services that affect them. No projects have yet been funded in Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, but applications would be welcome (application details at www.cypu.gov.uk/participation/consultationfund.cfm).

  Children's Registers
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what arrangements are in place for children in the UK to be included on(a) national and (b) local registers. [145026]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Queen's Speech said that a Bill will be introduced to improve services designed to protect children. Subject to the outcome of consultation on the "Every Child Matters" Green Paper, this will include proposals for establishing local information sharing systems to enable practitioners to share early relevant information about children and young people where this will enable better services to be provided to them and their families.
  There are no plans for children to be included on a national register.

  City Acadamies
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to the answer of 15 December 2003,Official Report, columns 659–60W, on city academies, how the funding is broken down between the three categories set out in his answer. [145243]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 5 January 2004]: The figure of £215.3 million set out in Section A of the

  Percentage of local schools Budget delegated

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  202

  Camden

  80.2

  81.1

  85.6

  87.1

  203

  Greenwich

  78.5

  84.1

  85.7

  87.7

  204

  Hackney

  76.4

  83.4

  85.2

  86.6

  205

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  79.5

  85.9

  87.3

  87.2

  206

  Islington

  81.2

  82.2

  86.1

  87.2

  207

  Kensington and Chelsea

  75.5

  81.9

  83.6

  83.9

  208

  Lambeth

  85.0

  81.4

  83.7

  85.2

  209

  Lewisham

  83.8

  86.3

  88.3

  87.3

  210

  Southwark

  77.4

  85.2

  86.7

  87.2

  211

  Tower Hamlets

  79.0

  86.5

  88.0

  88.6

  212

  Wandsworth

  80.9

  83.4

  86.1

  88.0

  213

  Westminster

  75.1

  81.0

  85.7

  87.4

  301

  Barking and Dagenham

  80.5

  82.5

  86.2

  87.1

  302

  Barnet

  86.1

  86.7

  90.2

  90.2

  303

  Bexley

  80.8

  83.9

  86.7

  85.2

  304

  Brent

  87.8

  88.0

  88.5

  87.7

  305

  Bromley

  82.5

  83.3

  85.8

  86.1

  306

  Croydon

  83.4

  84.9

  85.6

  86.0

  307

  Ealing

  80.5

  81.9

  86.4

  87.3

  308

  Enfield

  81.2

  83.5

  86.7

  87.0

  309

  Haringey

  74.9

  81.2

  85.1

  87.3

  310

  Harrow

  80.2

  83.1

  86.1

  88.0

  311

  Havering

  86.8

  87.1

  90.6

  89.8

  312

  Hillingdon

  87.1

  86.9

  88.3

  87.9

  313

  Hounslow

  84.3

  84.4

  86.9

  87.4

  314

  Kingston upon Thames

  83.8

  84.3

  88.5

  87.1

  315

  Merton

  79.6

  82.8

  85.5

  87.4

  316

  Newham

  76.4

  83.2

  86.5

  86.8

  317

  Redbridge

  84.4

  85.9

  88.2

  87.2

  318

  Richmond upon Thames

  82.1

  81.4

  86.5

  87.4

  319

  Sutton

  83.0

  84.8

  87.0

  87.5

  320

  Waltham Forest

  83.8

  84.2

  86.0

  87.1

  330

  Birmingham

  85.2

  87.4

  87.7

  87.6

  331

  Coventry

  84.1

  83.8

  85.9

  87.1

  332

  Dudley

  83.9

  86.0

  85.7

  88.4

  333

  Sandwell

  78.6

  83.2

  87.9

  88.3

  334

  Solihull

  85.5

  86.0

  86.9

  85.4

  284W
  Winter Supplementary Estimate 2003–04 breaks down as follows:
  Academy building refurbishment and construction costs—£167.9 million;
  Academies annual recurrent costs paid in general annual grant by the Secretary of State (including, where appropriate, startup costs)—£38.3 million; and
  General administrative expenditure incurred by the Department in the running of the programme (including project feasibility and implementation costs)—£9.1 million.

  The second figure of £11.3 million set out in Section J of the Winter Supplementary Estimate 2003–04 breaks down as follows:
  Standards Fund grant paid to Academies by local education authorities—£11.3 million.

  Delegated Expenditure
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of the(a) total expenditure on education and (b) total expenditure on schools in each local education authority was delegated to schools in each of the last five years. [144061]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 15 December 2003]: The following table shows the percentage of each LEA's Local Schools Budget delegated to schools in the years 1999–2000 to 2002–03. Data for the percentage of total education expenditure delegated to schools by LEAs will require further work and I will write to the hon. Member.
  285W

  335

  Walsall

  86.1

  85.9

  86.8

  87.2

  336

  Wolverhampton

  82.5

  83.8

  86.8

  87.8

  340

  Knowsley

  80.0

  82.8

  86.2

  87.3

  341

  Liverpool

  81.2

  86.2

  86.9

  87.4

  342

  St. Helens

  81.2

  84.0

  87.7

  88.0

  343

  Sefton

  80.2

  86.4

  89.5

  89.0

  344

  Wirral

  81.6

  82.8

  87.1

  86.7

  350

  Bolton

  80.8

  84.2

  85.3

  86.9

  351

  Bury

  81.3

  84.6

  86.6

  87.1

  352

  Manchester

  77.4

  81.8

  85.4

  87.9

  353

  Oldham

  82.6

  86.2

  86.7

  87.0

  354

  Rochdale

  80.6

  83.6

  87.4

  87.6

  355

  Salford

  77.4

  86.0

  87.6

  87.0

  356

  Stockport

  81.6

  82.7

  85.1

  87.0

  357

  Tameside

  82.1

  84.6

  85.2

  87.6

  358

  Trafford

  82.3

  83.1

  88.6

  88.8

  359

  Wigan

  85.1

  87.3

  88.8

  88.3

  370

  Barnsley

  77.1

  82.3

  86.6

  87.3

  371

  Doncaster

  81.4

  83.0

  84.7

  88.1

  372

  Rotherham

  82.4

  87.0

  88.9

  87.9

  373

  Sheffield

  82.2

  83.9

  85.7

  87.5

  380

  Bradford

  81.4

  83.7

  86.5

  89.0

  381

  Calderdale

  83.1

  84.1

  85.8

  87.9

  382

  Kirklees

  83.2

  86.7

  88.5

  88.3

  383

  Leeds

  85.2

  86.2

  85.8

  87.4

  384

  Wakefield

  77.8

  82.3

  85.0

  87.0

  390

  Gateshead

  78.2

  83.4

  86.1

  84.3

  391

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  75.9

  86.2

  85.4

  87.3

  392

  North Tyneside

  80.4

  81.9

  86.8

  87.4

  393

  South Tyneside

  80.5

  83.3

  87.0

  86.5

  394

  Sunderland

  84.6

  85.6

  86.7

  88.4

  800

  Bath & North East Somerset

  82.6

  84.2

  85.2

  87.8

  801

  City of Bristol

  82.7

  85.2

  86.1

  87.7

  802

  North Somerset

  81.3

  82.3

  85.4

  85.9

  803

  South Gloucestershire

  82.3

  82.8

  86.3

  87.0

  805

  Hartlepool

  81.4

  84.3

  86.9

  87.0

  806

  Middlesbrough

  76.7

  84.5

  86.3

  85.6

  807

  Redcar and Cleveland

  82.2

  86.6

  87.3

  87.6

  808

  Stockton-on-Tees

  81.3

  85.7

  86.3

  87.1

  810

  City of Kingston Upon Hull

  81.0

  83.1

  85.8

  87.1

  811

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  83.2

  82.5

  86.7

  87.1

  812

  North East Lincolnshire

  81.7

  85.3

  85.0

  87.3

  813

  North Lincolnshire

  79.3

  81.7

  86.8

  87.1

  815

  North Yorkshire

  83.7

  83.8

  86.8

  87.3

  816

  York

  83.2

  84.3

  85.3

  87.0

  820

  Bedfordshire

  83.9

  85.0

  85.1

  87.3

  821

  Luton

  81.4

  84.5

  85.8

  87.2

  825

  Buckinghamshire

  79.5

  80.5

  85.1

  85.4

  826

  Milton Keynes

  83.0

  83.6

  85.3

  87.0

  830

  Derbyshire

  84.3

  85.5

  85.6

  86.2

  831

  Derby

  80.2

  83.0

  85.2

  87.6

  835

  Dorset

  79.9

  80.2

  86.6

  86.9

  836

  Poole

  84.5

  85.9

  87.5

  89.5

  837

  Bournemouth

  83.3

  85.0

  88.0

  87.0

  840

  Durham

  80.7

  82.3

  87.4

  86.9

  841

  Darlington

  82.1

  82.6

  86.6

  85.9

  845

  East Sussex

  80.3

  81.9

  86.9

  87.1

  846

  Brighton and Hove

  79.7

  81.0

  87.3

  87.7

  850

  Hampshire

  85.2

  85.5

  86.4

  87.4

  851

  Portsmouth

  86.0

  86.3

  86.4

  87.1

  852

  Southampton

  83.6

  86.1

  86.9

  87.6

  855

  Leicestershire

  83.3

  84.2

  85.0

  84.7

  856

  Leicester

  79.3

  80.6

  85.1

  86.4

  857

  Rutland

  84.4

  84.4

  86.7

  87.1

  860

  Staffordshire

  86.1

  84.9

  85.3

  88.0

  861

  Stoke-on-Trent

  82.1

  85.9

  88.3

  87.0

  865

  Wiltshire

  83.5

  83.8

  86.1

  86.0

  866

  Swindon

  83.2

  85.4

  86.7

  86.3

  867

  Bracknell Forest

  80.0

  82.3

  85.1

  86.0

  868

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  81.9

  83.7

  85.3

  87.0

  869

  West Berkshire

  84.3

  86.5

  88.7

  87.7

  870

  Reading

  80.9

  84.3

  85.0

  86.6

  871

  Slough

  85.5

  86.7

  87.9

  87.7

  286W 287W

  872

  Wokingham

  82.7

  84.1

  86.1

  85.4

  873

  Cambridgeshire

  75.8

  81.7

  86.5

  87.1

  874

  Peterborough

  78.1

  86.0

  88.1

  87.5

  875

  Cheshire

  84.4

  84.4

  86.1

  87.2

  876

  Halton

  81.2

  86.7

  88.4

  87.1

  877

  Warrington

  84.8

  86.4

  87.0

  87.8

  878

  Devon

  81.2

  80.5

  87.6

  87.1

  879

  Plymouth

  82.6

  83.8

  87.4

  87.6

  880

  Torbay

  79.4

  81.5

  85.0

  86.6

  881

  Essex

  83.5

  84.4

  86.2

  87.1

  882

  Southend-on-Sea

  88.4

  89.8

  90.3

  89.6

  883

  Thurrock

  81.9

  83.8

  84.8

  87.3

  884

  Herefordshire

  78.7

  81.2

  85.1

  86.1

  885

  Worcestershire

  81.2

  83.2

  83.7

  86.6

  886

  Kent

  81.3

  83.2

  85.3

  87.3

  887

  Medway

  82.0

  84.7

  86.2

  88.4

  888

  Lancashire

  80.5

  81.4

  85.4

  87.2

  889

  Blackburn with Darwen

  78.0

  82.6

  85.7

  87.1

  890

  Blackpool

  79.1

  81.5

  85.6

  85.6

  891

  Nottinghamshire

  86.0

  86.0

  85.4

  88.2

  892

  Nottingham

  83.9

  83.8

  85.0

  87.0

  893

  Shropshire

  81.4

  83.5

  87.6

  87.0

  894

  Telford & Wrekin

  81.5

  84.1

  85.1

  87.1

  908

  Cornwall

  79.6

  79.8

  85.8

  86.3

  909

  Cumbria

  83.9

  85.6

  87.8

  87.1

  916

  Gloucestershire

  83.4

  84.2

  85.2

  85.4

  919

  Hertfordshire

  83.6

  84.7

  86.0

  87.7

  921

  Isle of Wight

  76.8

  83.1

  86.2

  87.1

  925

  Lincolnshire

  83.7

  87.9

  90.3

  89.3

  926

  Norfolk

  84.5

  85.0

  87.1

  87.0

  928

  Northamptonshire

  86.5

  87.2

  89.0

  87.7

  929

  Northumberland

  81.4

  81.3

  88.3

  88.0

  931

  Oxfordshire

  84.1

  84.6

  85.4

  87.1

  933

  Somerset

  84.6

  84.8

  85.8

  85.4

  935

  Suffolk

  85.6

  85.4

  86.8

  89.1

  936

  Surrey

  82.0

  83.8

  86.3

  87.0

  937

  Warwickshire

  82.1

  85.3

  86.9

  87.3

  938

  West Sussex

  83.5

  83.4

  87.3

  87.9

  Notes:

  1. The figures shown in the table have previously been published as part of the Department's Comparative Tables and reflect the methods of calculation underlying the comparative tables for each year. This means that they incorporate various adjustments which were made in some or all of these years. For the years 1999–2000, 2000–01, 2001–02 and 2002–03, the published comparative tables included information on the level of financial delegation direct to schools by LEAs. The measurement of these levels of delegation were associated with the achievement of delegation targets by LEAs. For each of those years, the average level of delegation stood at 82.4 per cent., 84 per cent., 86.3 per cent. and 87.2 per cent. respectively. The corresponding percentage for 1997–98 was about 79 per cent.

  2. The Department does not hold any comparable data for 2003–04. With the Education Act 2002 came the introduction of separate LEA and schools budgets, the establishment of schools forums and the introduction of a reserve power which enables the Secretary of State, in exceptional cases, to set a minimum level for an LEA's local schools budget. As a result, Ministers decided not to set delegation targets of the kind which had operated since 1999.

  3. Only about one-tenth of the funding retained centrally by LEAs relates to "central administration". Most of it relates to such items as school transport (about one-fifth of the total retained centrally); special educational needs (SEN); out-of-school education and behaviour

  support; and school improvement.

  Divorce
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children were affected by divorce in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. (145658]

  Mr. Lammy
  I have been asked to reply.
  The Office for National Statistics publishes annual figures for the number of children of divorcing couples in England and Wales. The total number of children involved for the last two years for which figures are available are as follows:
  2001—146,914
  2002—149,335

  Early-years Funding
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools in each local education authority area received early years funding in the current financial year; and what the total funding made available in the current financial year under the programme is in each local education authority area. [145431]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department does not fund schools directly. Local education authorities receive funding through revenue support grant through the calculation of Education Formula Spending Shares for early years provision. The under-five sub-block in the Education Formula Spending Share calculation for 2003–04 was £2.6 billion. However, this funding is unhypothecated and it is for LEAs to decide how much to spend on early
  289W
  years and then allocate resources to schools and other early years settings as appropriate. The Department does not collect allocated budgets for every early year provider.
  The Department also provides direct grants specifically for early years programmes. MNS development grant is aimed specifically at the maintained sector. The number of schools benefiting and the amount allocated for each LEA is shown below.

  £

  LEA

  Number of schools

  Amount of funding allocated

  Barnet

  4

  55,172

  Barnsley

  2

  23,215

  Bedfordshire

  7

  74,150

  Birmingham

  25

  204,633

  Blackburn with Darwen

  9

  77,239

  Bolton

  5

  50,208

  Bradford

  6

  54,096

  Brent

  4

  26,457

  Brighton and Hove

  2

  23,459

  Bristol, City of

  15

  161,412

  Buckinghamshire

  4

  37,833

  Bury

  1

  14,150

  Cambridgeshire

  6

  55,899

  Camden

  1

  15,786

  Cheshire

  2

  26,242

  Cornwall

  2

  19,367

  Coventry

  1

  19,772

  Croydon

  6

  56,458

  Cumbria

  7

  64,458

  Darlington

  6

  73,866

  Derby

  9

  65,837

  Derbyshire

  8

  73,890

  Devon

  1

  14,911

  Dudley

  1

  15,170

  Durham

  15

  129,919

  Ealing

  5

  42,732

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  4

  50,981

  Essex

  2

  34,373

  Gateshead

  1

  13,229

  Greenwich

  6

  58,947

  Hackney

  2

  20,474

  Halton

  4

  42,764

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  5

  52,773

  Hampshire

  3

  27,557

  Haringey

  3

  30,324

  Hartlepool

  1

  13,440

  Hertfordshire

  17

  166,387

  Hillingdon

  1

  18,363

  Islington

  3

  31,376

  Kensington and Chelsea

  4

  28,421

  Kent

  1

  14,997

  Kingston upon Hull, City of

  3

  35,139

  Kingston upon Thames

  1

  17,761

  Kirklees

  3

  39,823

  Lambeth

  5

  48,049

  Lancashire

  30

  260,771

  Leicester

  1

  11,559

  Leicestershire

  1

  12,575

  Lewisham

  2

  28,080

  Lincolnshire

  5

  53,656

  Liverpool

  6

  49,282

  Luton

  6

  76,067

  Manchester

  2

  16,972

  Milton Keynes

  2

  20,187

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  7

  58,321

  Newham

  8

  93,567

  Norfolk

  4

  42,662

  North East Lincolnshire

  3

  37,009

  North Tyneside

  2

  22,725

  North Yorkshire

  3

  30,481

  290W

  £

  LEA

  Number of school

  Amount of Funding allocated

  Northamptonshire

  8

  69,887

  Northumberland

  1

  14,911

  Nottingham

  4

  33,162

  Nottinghamshire

  2

  27,211

  Oxfordshire

  15

  102,601

  Peterborough

  1

  22,090

  Plymouth

  2

  22,189

  Portsmouth

  1

  15,862

  Reading

  5

  56,025

  Richmond upon Thames

  1

  12,921

  Rochdale

  8

  84,765

  Rotherham

  3

  40,766

  Salford

  13

  73,072

  Sefton

  4

  35,400

  Sheffield

  5

  64,889

  Slough

  5

  69,925

  South Tyneside

  6

  41,811

  Southampton

  1

  17,765

  Southwark

  5

  54,963

  St. Helens

  2

  23,474

  Staffordshire

  9

  85,024

  Stockport

  9

  69,917

  Stoke-on-Trent

  11

  69,032

  Suffolk

  1

  17,246

  Sunderland

  10

  77,213

  Surrey

  5

  44,608

  Sutton

  2

  24,549

  Tameside

  3

  27,972

  Telford and Wrekin

  2

  21,312

  Tower Hamlets

  7

  70,166

  Wakefield

  5

  44,749

  Walsall

  8

  74,114

  Waltham Forest

  4

  36,406

  Wandsworth

  3

  26,740

  Warrington

  1

  18,025

  Warwickshire

  9

  70,492

  West Berkshire

  2

  24,557

  West Sussex

  4

  44,263

  Westminster

  3

  25,036

  Wigan

  2

  27,194

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  4

  39,072

  Wirral

  3

  33,044

  Wokingham

  1

  21,658

  Wolverhampton

  8

  60,931

  Worcestershire

  1

  12,575

  York

  1

  17,592

  515

  5,002,587

  Family Mediation
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many family disputes involving contact with children have received government funding for mediation in each of the last six years. [141144]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Government encourages the use of family mediation as an alternative to court proceedings in appropriate cases. Mediation can be particularly beneficial in resolving disputes over child contact. Public funding for family mediation was introduced under the provisions of Part III of the Family Law Act 1996. The Legal Services Commission began contracting with mediation services for the provision of publicly funded family mediation in March 1997. Contracts were completed in all areas in March 2000 and publicly funded family mediation is now available throughout England and Wales.
  291W
  The Legal Services Commission has reported that the numbers of cases for which public funding has been provided for family mediation since the introduction of the provisions of the Family Law Act where children issues were in dispute are as follows:

  Number

  1997–1998

  318

  1998–1999

  1056

  1999–2000

  4959

  2000–2001

  7288

  2001–2002

  9658

  2002–2003

  10,383

  Food in Schools Programme
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total cost to public funds of the Food in Schools Programme has been. [144562]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Food in Schools is a joint Department for Education and Skills (DfES)/Department of Health (DH) programme. Funding for the DIES strand of Food in Schools (April 2001—March 2004) is £545,000, while the DH strand has been allocated £2 million (April 2001—February 2005). Food in Schools aims to bring together all food related activities in schools, including training for teachers, and to help them work towards the National Healthy Schools Standard.

  Food Technologists
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations have been made to him on shortages of food technologists in schools; and if he will make a statement. [144819]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  I am aware of no such representations. We maintain regular contact with the Design and Technology Association (DATA), the professional association for food technology teachers. We work with them and other partners to offer training, support and guidance to teachers of food technology in both primary and secondary schools.

  Foster Care
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent discussions he has had with(a) the Chancellor of the Exchequer and (b) others regarding allowances for children in foster care; and if he will make a statement. [140912]

  Margaret Hodge
  Through the Choice Protects Programme and the consultation on the 'Supporting foster carers' section of the Green Paper, 'Every Child Matters' we are consulting widely with a range of stakeholders about support for foster carers. Choice Protects is also investing £113 million over three years to expand and strengthen fostering services.
  The National Minimum Standards for Fostering Services state that fostering services must provide foster carers with an allowance and agreed expenses, which cover the full cost of caring for each child placed with them.
  292W
  The financial implications of the Green Paper will be considered as part of the Government's 2004 Spending Review.

  Give as You Earn Scheme
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what percentage of staff in his Department contribute to a charity through the Give as You Earn scheme; how much money is donated to charity per month by staff in his Department through the scheme; and what steps he is taking to encourage greater participation in the scheme by staff in his Department. [143896]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My Department actively supports and encourages payroll giving. Along with volunteering and charitable donations, staff can choose up to eight charities to make regular donations through the payroll system. There are currently 266 (5.7 per cent.) of my staff participating in the Payroll Giving Scheme raising a total of £27,023 per annum.
  We are working with the Giving Campaign to increase the number of contributing employees to around 10 per cent. Employees often choose to give direct or volunteer their time to charities of their choice so Payroll Giving does not fully reflect the amount of charitable activity within my Department.

  Hampshire Local Education Authority
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what(a) the Education Formula Spending Share for 2003–04, (b) the adjusted EFSS for 2003–04 used as part of the 2004–05 local government settlement, (c) the raw educational spending share for 2004–05 before the floors and ceilings and (d) the educational formula spending share for 2004–05 after floors and ceilings are for Hampshire Local Education Authority. [145972]

  Mr. Miliband
  The figures are provided in the table.

  £ million

  2003–04 EFSS

  580.127

  2003–04 adjusted EFSS

  582.313

  2004–05 EFSS before floors and ceiling

  587.937

  2004–05 EFSS after floors and ceilings

  606.795

  Key Stage 3 Tests
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many pupils have taken Key Stage 3 tests early as a result of the Express Sets initiative referred to in the Green Paper, "Schools: Building on Success"; and if he will make a statement; [144488]
  (2) if he will make a statement on the progress achieved in securing increases in the extent of setting within subjects as set out in paragraph 4.33 of the Green Paper "Schools: Building on Success". [144492]

  Mr. Miliband
  For 2003 and previous years there has been no readily available means of identifying pupils who took individual subjects or all three Key Stage 3 tests early. However, from 2004 onwards it will be
  293W
  possible to identify these pupils and allow evaluation of any projects encouraging the implementation of a shorter Key Stage 3.
  Data from lessons observed by Ofsted shows that there has been overall increase in setting at Key Stage 3 from 32 per cent. in 1998/99 to 36 per cent. in 2001/02. Setting has also increased within subjects at Key Stage 3 over the same period, although the extent of the increases varies from subject to subject.
  It is not possible for the Department to determine readily whether schools' decisions to enter their pupils for the Key Stage 3 tests early, or increases in the use of setting, have been influenced by national or local initiatives or which of those may have been contributing factors. It is for schools to make decisions about early test entry and whether and how to use pupil grouping to best meet the learning needs of their pupils, although through the Primary and Key Stage 3 Strategies and in our Gifted and Talented programme we will continue to offer guidance and support on classroom practice. We are also exploring through a small project different models for a shorter Key Stage 3, designed to promote pupil motivation, engagement and progression, and to open up curricular flexibilities pre and post-14 through completion of the Key Stage 3 programme of study in two years.

  "Making Contact Work"
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he will publish the Government's response to the report, "Making Contact Work"; and if he will make a statement. [144491]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Children Act Sub-Committee published their report, "Making Contact Work", in February 2002. The then Lord Chancellor's Department published its interim response in August 2002. Following the Machinery of Government changes last year, I now have lead responsibility for child contact issues. We continue to view children's interests as being paramount and we want to encourage contact between children and non-resident parents where it is in the best interest of the child and safe for all family members.
  Working with my hon. Friends in the Department for Constitutional Affairs, we are considering carefully how the family justice system and related children's services can better meet the needs of all children and their parents following relationship breakdown. We want to ensure that better outcomes are achieved for children by, where possible, helping parents agree contact arrangements without the intervention of the courts. We expect to conclude these considerations early in the New Year and that the Government's response to "Making Contact Work" will then be published.

  Music Teaching
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what the average school budget is for musical instruments in each local education authority in England; [145463]
  294W
  (2) how many children in (a) primary and (b) secondary schools do not have access to music lessons in school outside the National Curriculum; [145473]
  (3) what progress the Government have made in extending music opportunities in (a) primary and (b) secondary schools since 1997; [145474]
  (4) how many children in (a) primary and (b) secondary schools do not have access to a musical instrument. [145476]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 5 January 2004 ]: The Government do not determine how much each school or LEA spends on musical instruments, nor do we collect information on how many children have access to a musical instrument.
  Since 1999, every local education authority has received Music Standards Fund (MSF) which can be spent in any way that enhances opportunities for pupils to access musical education of high quality. In the vast majority of authorities, this will include specialist instrumental tuition outside of the National Curriculum. According to a recent Survey of LEA Music Services1 commissioned by DfES, at any moment in time, on average 8 per cent. of pupils will be receiving regular instrumental lessons through their LEA, although many more will be learning music in the classroom or in their own time.
  The introduction of MSF in 1999 to protect and expand LEA Music Services has caused a major upturn in music provision. Between 1999 and 2004, some £270 million will have gone to LEA Music Services.
  In addition, we have pledged that, over time, all primary school pupils who want to should have an opportunity to learn a musical instrument. Ofsted are currently evaluating 12 pilots which aim to model how specialist instrumental tuition can be integrated with classroom music teaching. The results of the evaluation will be published later this year.
  1Research Report No. 478, 30 October 2003. Survey of Local Education Authorities' Music Services. 2002. Sue Hallam and Lynne Rogers, Institute of Education, University of London.

  Numeracy and Literacy Targets
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which of the Government's(a) numeracy and (b) literacy targets for 11 year olds were missed in 2002. [145202]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The 2002 Key Stage 2 targets for 80 per cent. of 11 year olds to reach level 4+ in English and 75 per cent. of 11 year olds to reach level 4+ in mathematics were set in 1997. The results from the 2002 National Curriculum tests showed that 75 per cent. of 11 year olds reached this level in English and 73 per cent. in mathematics. Results were maintained at that level in 2003.
  These results represent a significant improvement—of 12 percentage points in English and 11 percentage points in mathematics—in standards since 1997,

  295W
  reflecting the impact of the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies on primary schools. We remain absolutely committed, through our new Primary Strategy, to supporting schools to achieve the ambitious targets we have set for standards of literacy and numeracy.

  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of 11-year-olds have reached the required standard in(a) English and (b) numeracy in each year since the introduction of the National Literacy Strategy, broken down by local education authority. [145203]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries.

  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much funding has been provided to implement the Government's(a) numeracy and (b) literacy strategies in each year since 1998. [145206]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies, which started in 1998 and 1999 respectively, have transformed standards of attainment in primary schools. The total funding available (including matched funding) to local education authorities in England through the Standards Fund to support the implementation of the strategies in each financial year since 1998–99 was as follows:

  £ million

  National Literacy Strategy

  National Numeracy Strategy

  1998–99

  62.7

  —

  1999–2000

  72.8

  73.8

  2000–01

  84.5

  95.2

  2001–02

  102.6

  103

  2002–03

  101.2

  101.2

  2003–04

  107.4

  107.4

  Pathfinder Project (School Work Force)
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools participated in the Pathfinder Transforming the School Workforce project in 2003–04; what the total value of that support was; and what financial support will be given to these schools in 2004–05. [144846]

  Mr. Miliband
  32 schools participated in the Transforming the School Workforce Pathfinder project that ran during the academic year 2002/03. In total, some £1 million was allocated to the schools in the financial year 2003–04. The Pathfinder project has now come to an end—a full evaluation will be published in the new year. No additional funding will be allocated to the Pathfinder schools in 2004–05.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 8 December 2003,Official Report, columns 287–88W, on Pathfinder projects, if he will publish the table to which the answer refers. [145470]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is shown in the following tables, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries.296W

  Department for Education and Skills pathfinder projects 2003–04

  Local education authority.

  Number of school

  Total funding

  Barking and Dagenham

  15

  150,280

  Barnet

  7

  38,000

  Barnsley

  4

  29,709

  Bath and North East Somerset

  4

  62,840

  Bedfordshire

  n/a

  162,460

  Bexley

  1

  8,500

  Birmingham

  134

  494,152

  Blackburn with Darwen

  5

  25,000

  Bradford

  12

  90,000

  Brent

  4

  38,300

  Brighton and Hove

  50

  140,380

  Bristol, City of

  2

  25,000

  Bromley

  8

  43,880

  Buckinghamshire

  4

  21,340

  Bury

  30

  65,460

  Calderdale

  34

  32,900

  Cambridgeshire

  6

  31,440

  Camden

  1

  5,300

  Cheshire

  2

  40,790

  Cornwall

  13

  51,700

  Coventry

  59

  725,720

  Croydon

  8

  50,000

  Cumbria

  14

  659,860

  Darlington

  2

  57,980

  Derby, City of

  2

  466,755

  Derbyshire

  3

  718,162

  Doncaster

  2

  86,900

  Dorset

  1

  8,500

  Dudley

  3

  258,703

  Durham

  1

  225,806

  Ealing

  1

  75,000

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  115

  137,705

  East Sussex

  2

  31,400

  Enfield

  59

  182,476

  Essex

  21

  338,972

  Gateshead

  n/a

  420,980

  Gloucestershire

  5

  73,814

  Greenwich

  2

  33,548

  Hackney

  9

  185,000

  Halton

  10

  100,000

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  9

  250,848

  Hampshire

  76

  227,657

  Haringey

  5

  30,000

  Harrow

  1

  315,919

  Herefordshire

  1

  17,285

  Hertfordshire

  79

  672,937

  Hounslow

  15

  67,720

  Isle of Wight

  1

  2,300

  Islington

  n/a

  250.938

  Kent

  520

  367,476

  Kingston upon Hull, City of

  5

  118,430

  Kirklees

  8

  55,000

  Knowlsey

  45

  1,133,605

  Lambeth

  2

  64,186

  Lancashire

  75

  194,950

  Leeds

  3

  18,375

  Leicestershire

  3

  58,500

  Lewisham

  2

  503,950

  Lincolnshire

  9

  457,085

  Liverpool

  76

  263,542

  Manchester

  3

  351,296

  Medway

  1

  1,750

  Merton

  3

  22,000

  Middlesbrough

  1

  5,000

  Newham

  15

  388,300

  Norfolk

  92

  444,950

  North Lincolnshire

  n/a

  484,085

  North Somerset

  6

  8,500

  North Tyneside

  137

  346,082

  North Yorkshire

  1

  17,000

  Northamptonshire

  2

  63,845

  Northumberland

  4

  8,500

  297W

  Local education authority

  Number of schools

  Total funding

  Nottingham City of

  9

  444,500

  Nottinghamshire

  71

  705,161

  Oldham

  44

  878,045

  Oxfordshire

  3

  87,303

  Peterborough, City of

  1

  143,000

  Plymouth, City of

  7

  435,327

  Portsmouth

  10

  90,750

  Redbridge

  4

  63,400

  Richmond upon Thames

  32

  70,349

  Rotherham

  2

  11,065

  Salford

  1

  5,834

  Sandwell

  n/a

  182,048

  Sefton

  1

  31,340

  Sheffield

  43

  286,180

  Shropshire

  4

  806,483

  Slough

  2

  38,770

  Solihull

  2

  66,800

  Somerset

  7

  405,406

  South Gloucestershire

  n/a

  691,639

  South Tyneside

  16

  168,000

  Southampton

  n/a

  395,200

  Southend

  2

  20,792

  Southwark

  3

  291,352

  St. Helens

  1

  41,000

  Staffordshire

  3

  46,587

  Stockport

  n/a

  330,419

  Stockton-on-Tees

  3

  530,574

  Stoke-on-Trent

  1

  12,000

  Suffolk

  6

  174,475

  Surrey

  2

  56,586

  Tower Hamlets

  3

  382,754

  Trafford

  1

  15,000

  Wakefield

  4

  412,500

  Walsall

  1

  202,048

  Wandsworth

  1

  16,010

  Warrington

  3

  185,299

  Warwickshire

  6

  915,194

  West Sussex

  4

  64,542

  Westminster, City of

  3

  587,528

  Wigan

  1

  25,000

  Wiltshire

  10

  82,232

  Wokingham

  12

  26,000

  Wolverhampton

  n/a

  881,564

  Worcestershire

  25

  42,500

  York

  5

  299,500

  England

  2,214

  25,254,779

  n/a=Funding will be shown for this project but `n/a' for the number of schools.
  Notes:

  1. Schools may be involved in more than one project, as a result some schools may be counted more than once.

  2. The number of institutions involved in the 14–19 Pathfinders are not held centrally.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the Pathfinder project, Transforming the School Workforce, and its benefits for people in Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland. [144745]

  Mr. Miliband
  The implementation of the National Agreement on Raising Standards and Tackling Workload will benefit teachers, support staff and, most importantly, pupils. The experience of the Pathfinder schools has demonstrated what can be achieved through workforce reform and how those changes can best be managed at school level. The lessons learned from the project will help schools across the country to make the 298W
  best use of their resources and to free teachers to focus on teaching and learning. A full evaluation of the project will be published in the new year.

  Pre-school Places
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time child care places in nursery and childminding settings Ofsted has (i) registered and (ii) inspected for children under the age of three over the last 12 months. [143576]

  Margaret Hodge
  This is a matter for the Office of Education and Standards (Ofsted) and Her Majesty's Chief Inspector will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Libraries. Ofsted has been responsible for the registration and inspection of children's day care facilities since September 2001.

  Pupil Exclusions
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children aged(a) between four and 11, (b) between 12 and 16 and (c) between 16 and 18 have been excluded from school in (i) St. Helens and (ii) Merseyside in (A) 2001, (B) 2002 and (C) 2003. [144588]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information requested is given for the following ages: four to 11,12 to 15 and 16 to 18.

  Maintained primary, secondary and all special schools: Number of excluded pupils by age group—1999/2000 to 2001/02 (Estimates)1

  1999/2000

  2000/011

  2001/021

  St. Helens LEA Pupils aged 3:

  4 to 11

  2

  0

  1

  12 to 15

  25

  10

  16

  16 to 18

  0

  0

  0

  Total4

  28

  10

  17

  Merseyside2 Pupils aged3

  4 to 11

  59

  65

  57

  12 to 15

  251

  154

  161

  16 to 18

  2

  3

  0

  Total4

  312

  222

  218

  1 Estimates have been made for 2000/01 and 2001/02 due to incomplete school level returns.
  2 Includes Knowsley, Liverpool, St. Helens, Sefton and Wirral LEAs.
  3 Age as at 31 August at start of reference year.
  4 Total number of excluded pupils.
  Source:
  Annual Schools' Census
  Latest information on exclusions refers to the school year 2001/02.

  School Finance
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much each component of the school formula spending share per pupil for(a) primary and (b) secondary school pupils was in each local education authority in (i) 2003–04 and (ii) 2004–05. [145968]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries.

  School Premises (Arson Attacks)
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures the Government will put in place to tackle arson attacks on school premises in the next three years. [146111]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department takes the problem of arson in schools very seriously and in 2000 issued the guide Fire Safety, which includes advice on how to reduce the risks of arson attacks. This complements our guidance on reducing crime in schools, such as the booklet "Improving Security in Schools" and the video "Can You See What They See?" We also have a school security website that is regularly updated—www.dfes.gov.uk/schoolsecurity. We now have consultants working on a new, and more comprehensive fire safety guidance document for schools. It covers risk assessments and will include advice on security and the prevention of arson. We anticipate that the document will be subject to public consultation early in 2004.
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) has general responsibility for fire safety and arson and we have been looking at how the two departments can work more closely on the issue of fire safety in schools. ODPM officials now attend the Department's Working Group on School Security, while we have recently accepted an invitation to send a representative to meetings of the Arson Control Forum, which remains the national strategic body for addressing the wider arson problem. This should help us to consider how best to promote school arson prevention initiatives among schools and local education authorities.
  Officials from my Department also sit on the Arson in Schools Working Group, a group of experts representing the insurance industry, the fire and police services, local authorities and government departments. One of its outputs has been the publication of the guide "How to Combat Arson in Schools", which is available free and has been well received by schools.
  Of course if a fire should happen in a school, the Department's primary concern is for the safety of pupils, teachers and other users. Regulation 17 of the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1999 requires that every part of a school building, and of the land provided for a school, shall be such that the safe escape of the occupants in case of fire is reasonably assured. Schools are also covered by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and by subsequent related regulations. These include aspects of fire safety.

  School Transport
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when the draft bill on school transport will be published; what its principal provisions will be; what assessment has been made of the impact it will have on policies relating to transport to denominational schools of pupils of that denomination; what assessment has been made of the financial implications of the bill for(a) parents, (b) schools and (c) local education authorities; what assessment has been made of the effect it will have on the current providers of school transport; whether any of the
  300W
  proposed changes will take place on a pilot basis; and what consultations have been undertaken by the Department. [142786]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 8 December 2003]: In September 2003 the Secretary of State for Transport and I published Travelling to School: an action plan'. It consulted on measures to cut congestion and pollution and promote healthier travel alternatives for pupils travelling to and from school, including plans for piloting new arrangements for school transport in a small number of exemplar authorities.
  The draft school transport bill will invite local education authorities to run up to 12 pilot schemes providing flexible, safe, transport choices for pupils and parents. Pilot areas will be required to look at the needs of all pupils, not just those entitled to free transport, and pilots should reduce car use on the school run. We would particularly welcome bids that seek to support pupils travelling to denominational schools.
  We will publish a draft regulatory impact assessment alongside the draft bill: it will consider the financial implications for parents, schools, local education authorities and current providers of home to school transport. Whilst precise financial assessments can not be made until we know what proposals are put forward the financial implications will be considered as part of the selection and subsequent evaluation of pilot areas.
  We consulted on outline proposals in "Travelling to School: an action plan" and will consult on the draft bill and proposals for implementation in early 2004.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make it his policy to ensure that free school transport is available to the children of families who wish to exercise a choice not to attend a faith school and who have to travel outside their catchment area. [145519]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  We have no plans to change the school transport legislation to require local education authorities (LEAs) to provide free school transport for pupils whose families wish to exercise a choice not to attend a faith school and who have to travel outside their catchment area. LEAs may choose to provide free or subsidised transport for pupils attending faith schools, or for pupils whose parents wish them not to attend a faith school, using their discretion to operate policies that meet the needs of their local communities.

  Sex Education
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what arrangements his Department has made to ensure co-ordination of the teenage sexual health strategy with the Department of Health's sexual health strategy; [145188]
  (2) if he will take steps to ensure sex education teaching in schools takes full account of the Department of Health's teenage sexual health strategy. [145190]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 5 January 2004]:The Teenage Pregnancy Strategy and the Sexual Health Strategy are closely co-ordinated to raise young people's awareness of sexual health issues, improve sexual health and promote choice. A shared feature of both strategies

  301W
  is the national campaign which targets young people, and improved availability of sexual health services and access to them.
  Teaching about sexual health and safer sex are key elements of the Government's sexual health strategy and are covered by our Sex and Relationship Education (SRE) Guidance which was sent to all schools in July 2000. Through SRE pupils learn about sexual health, contraception and the range of advice and support services which are available. Young people should be made aware of the risks of contracting a STI and know about prevention, diagnosis and treatment.

  Standards Fund
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools in each local education authority area received Standards Fund allocations in the current financial year; and what the total funding made available in the current financial year under the programme is in each local education authority area. [145434]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table shows the number of schools in each local education authority in England in receipt of Standards Fund allocations, and the total funding made available under the programme in each authority. Allocation figures include Government grant and local education authority contributions.

  Standards Fund allocations by local education authority 2003–04

  Local education authority

  Number of schools receiving devolved Standards Fund allocations2

  Recurrent grants (£ million)

  Capital grants (£ million)

  Barking

  59

  11.0

  6.3

  Barnet

  116

  13.1

  8.8

  Barnsley

  100

  12.7

  8.9

  Bath and North East Somerset

  86

  5.4

  6.3

  Bedfordshire

  215

  13.1

  14.7

  Bexley

  85

  8.3

  7.6

  Birmingham

  425

  74.1

  36.8

  Blackburn with Darwen

  73

  12.8

  5.9

  Blackpool

  43

  8.7

  5.1

  Bolton

  126

  11.7

  9.7

  Bournemouth

  41

  4.4

  4.4

  Bracknell Forest

  39

  3.3

  3.4

  Bradford

  199

  37.0

  16.0

  Brent

  79

  16.5

  7.5

  Brighton and Hove

  73

  7.8

  6.0

  Bristol

  148

  18.1

  13.5

  Bromley

  102

  9.4

  9.2

  Buckinghamshire

  233

  17.5

  18.0

  Bury

  88

  5.4

  6.4

  Calderdale

  105

  9.1

  7.6

  Cambridgeshire

  245

  15.3

  18.4

  Camden

  56

  13.5

  4.3

  Cheshire

  349

  19.9

  21.2

  Cornwall

  279

  16.4

  17.1

  Corporation of London

  1

  0.3

  0.1

  Coventry

  118

  15.3

  9.5

  Croydon

  121

  14.7

  8.9

  Cumbria

  336

  20.0

  18.1

  Darlington

  42

  4.3

  4.3

  Derby City

  99

  11.0

  8.5

  Derbyshire

  416

  22.9

  29.4

  Devon

  372

  19.8

  23.1

  Doncaster

  134

  18.5

  13.4

  Dorset

  184

  11.0

  11.9

  Dudley

  111

  10.8

  11.4

  Durham

  292

  19.9

  20.9

  Ealing

  84

  17.9

  8.7

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  160

  9.5

  13.4

  East Sussex

  194

  14.3

  14.9

  Enfield

  89

  16.7

  11.4

  302W

  Local education authority

  Number of school receiving devolved Standards Funds allocation2

  Recurrent grants (£ million)

  Capital grants (£ million)

  Essex

  583

  38.2

  44.9

  Gateshead

  91

  13.1

  6.0

  Gloucestershire

  308

  19.1

  18.4

  Greenwich

  84

  17.8

  7.5

  Hackney

  69

  17.7

  8.8

  Halton

  64

  9.8

  4.5

  Hammersmith & Fulham

  49

  10.9

  4.0

  Hampshire

  537

  30.2

  44.6

  Haringey

  81

  18.3

  5.0

  Harrow

  70

  7.1

  5.8

  Hartlepool

  38

  7.5

  3.8

  Havering

  86

  7.9

  8.3

  Herefordshire

  102

  6.7

  5.5

  Hertfordshire

  529

  32.3

  35.3

  Hillingdon

  89

  11.8

  8.5

  Hounslow

  79

  14.9

  8.2

  Isle of Wight

  69

  4.5

  4.7

  Isles of Scilly

  1

  0.5

  0.3

  Islington

  59

  14.0

  6.5

  Kensington & Chelsea

  32

  7.6

  2.0

  Kent

  607

  44.6

  44.7

  Kingston Upon Thames

  50

  4.6

  4.3

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  97

  15.6

  9.4

  Kirklees

  192

  20.2

  15.1

  Knowsley

  77

  14.0

  5.6

  Lambeth

  75

  15.8

  4.6

  Lancashire

  613

  43.9

  37.3

  Leeds

  294

  40.9

  25.1

  Leicester City

  113

  20.0

  11.1

  Leicestershire

  287

  16.7

  21.1

  Lewisham

  89

  17.0

  7.8

  Lincolnshire

  371

  26.2

  23.0

  Liverpool

  195

  33.6

  13.7

  Luton

  77

  14.1

  7.3

  Manchester

  182

  32.1

  14.9

  Medway

  113

  9.0

  9.2

  Merton

  54

  6.4

  4.5

  Middlesbrough

  60

  10.7

  6.3

  Milton Keynes

  105

  10.2

  7.7

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  95

  15.9

  12.2

  Newham

  84

  23.4

  10.3

  Norfolk

  451

  25.7

  27.5

  North East Lincolnshire

  0

  8.1

  8.3

  North Lincolnshire

  86

  7.1

  5.8

  North Somerset

  79

  7.0

  7.2

  North Tyneside

  78

  12.4

  9.1

  North Yorkshire

  387

  19.3

  21.3

  Northamptonshire

  346

  21.8

  23.0

  Northumberland

  211

  11.7

  12.6

  Nottingham City

  123

  18.4

  12.1

  Nottinghamshire

  367

  22.9

  27.3

  Oldham

  118

  16.4

  9.1

  Oxfordshire

  296

  17.5

  20.5

  Peterborough

  77

  9.0

  9.4

  Plymouth

  103

  8.7

  8.9

  Poole

  42

  4.2

  4.3

  Portsmouth

  69

  7.7

  5.8

  Reading

  48

  5.9

  4.3

  Redbridge

  73

  10.3

  7.8

  Redcar and Cleveland

  65

  9.8

  5.6

  Richmond upon Thames

  51

  4.5

  3.9

  Rochdale

  96

  14.5

  8.2

  Rotherham

  134

  19.0

  11.4

  Rutland

  21

  1.6

  1.4

  Salford

  103

  14.3

  7.7

  Sandwell

  122

  18.9

  13.1

  Sefton

  117

  17.1

  9.1

  Sheffield

  185

  29.1

  19.3

  Shropshire

  167

  9.8

  10.9

  Slough

  42

  7.6

  4.0

  Solihull

  86

  9.8

  6.9

  Somerset

  272

  15.7

  25.0

  South Gloucestershire

  115

  7.7

  9.6

  South Tyneside

  70

  11.2

  5.6

  Southampton

  84

  7.8

  6.7

  Southend-on-Sea

  61

  6.0

  6.2

  Southwark

  94

  17.6

  7.2

  303W

  Local education authority

  Number of school receiving developed Standards Fund allocations2

  Recurrent grants (£ million)

  Capital grants (£ million)

  St. Helens

  73

  11.8

  5.4

  Staffordshire

  403

  23.6

  28.2

  Stockport

  121

  9.6

  10.4

  Stockton-on-Tees

  80

  13.8

  7.1

  Stoke-on-Trent

  102

  15.6

  9.5

  Suffolk

  343

  19.5

  22.6

  Sunderland

  116

  18.0

  10.5

  Surrey

  403

  22.9

  26.6

  Sutton

  60

  5.8

  5.4

  Swindon

  82

  6.3

  6.9

  Tameside

  101

  10.0

  7.5

  Telford and Wrekin

  83

  6.1

  7.5

  Thurrock

  63

  7.5

  4.9

  Torbay

  44

  4.2

  3.9

  Tower Hamlets

  93

  26.6

  7.8

  Trafford

  97

  8.0

  8.2

  Wakefield

  152

  12.6

  12.6

  Walsall

  121

  15.3

  11.8

  Waltham Forest

  91

  17.2

  8.0

  Wandsworth

  77

  14.9

  8.1

  Warrington

  86

  6.6

  6.1

  Warwickshire

  245

  17.1

  22.6

  West Berkshire

  80

  5.4

  5.9

  West Sussex

  302

  19.1

  22.8

  Westminster

  50

  10.5

  3.4

  Wigan

  142

  11.7

  9.1

  Wiltshire

  260

  13.0

  14.3

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  60

  4.5

  5.2

  Wirral

  134

  19.8

  12.0

  Wokingham

  63

  4.4

  6.4

  Wolverhampton

  107

  16.8

  11.2

  Worcestershire

  263

  16.1

  17.7

  York

  69

  5.7

  6.1

  England Total

  22,372

  2,192.0

  1,740.4

  1 Data on numbers of schools is taken from the 2003–04 Section 52 Budget Table 2
  2 The number of schools receiving Devolved Standards Fund (DSF) is at the time of the budgets being set. This could be expected to rise once all unallocated devolved Standards Fund has been distributed.
  3 The data is as reported by LEAs. As a result the blank entries are where LEAs have not entered any data.

  Sure Start
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to expand Sure Start schemes. [144709]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 18 December 2003]: There will be 524 Sure Start local programmes by the beginning of 2004. Children's centres represent the next stage of the Government's plans to expand high quality integrated services in disadvantaged areas. Centres will develop largely from existing provision, including Sure Start local programmes, early excellence centres and neighbourhood nurseries. Children's centres will be initially developed in the 20 per cent. most disadvantaged wards in England. In the long term the Government aim to develop a children's centre in every community.

  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children have had access to Sure Start local programmes in England and Wales in each year since 1998; and how many are expected to have access to such programmes in 2004. [145265]
  304W
  Margaret Hodge
  The numbers of children aged 0 to 3 with access to Sure Start local programmes in England as at 31 March each year are shown in the table. All numbers are rounded to the nearest hundred. Sure Start in Wales is the responsibility of the devolved administration.

  Number of children

  1999

  0

  2000

  41,700

  2001

  116,600

  2002

  200,500

  2003

  350,600

  2004 (estimated)

  411,900

  Teachers (Assaults)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many assaults there were against teachers by pupils in schools in the Eastern region; and what measures he is taking to prevent such attacks. [144862]

  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many assaults have been recorded on(a) teachers and (b) other local authority education staff in Bedfordshire in (i) the last year for which figures are available and (ii) each of the previous five years. [144899]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 18 December 2003]: Serious injuries to primary and secondary teachers in Great Britain caused by physical violence reported to the Health and Safety Executive have been as follows:

  Number of serious injuries

  1996/97

  83

  1997/98

  119

  1998/99

  124

  1999/2000

  135

  2000/01

  135

  2001/02

  110

  These figures are not available by region or local authority. Data on less serious assaults are not available.
  We are investing nearly £470 million over the next three years in measures to improve behaviour and attendance in schools. These will include training for school staff in preventing violence. We have also made it clear that head teachers may permanently exclude pupils responsible for violence. New legislation in the Antisocial Behaviour Act will enable local education authorities to apply for court-imposed Parenting Orders for parents whose children have been excluded from school for serious misbehaviour. And we have issued "A legal toolkit for schools" which identifies legal remedies available when school staff experience problems with violent parents.

  Voluntary Aided Schools
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent advice he has given to(a) diocesan boards of education and (b) local

  305W
  education authorities, regarding the budget for capital works available to voluntary aided schools in 2004/05; and if he will make a statement. [144669]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 18 December 2003]: Officials will shortly be writing to all dioceses and local education authorities to confirm to them that final allocations of formulaic allocations for voluntary aided schools will take place in February 2004. Major allocations of capital grant from the Department's Targeted Capital Fund will be announced in January 2004 in the usual way.

  Youth and Schools Councils
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action is being taken to promote and support youth and schools councils in the North East; and how many(a) exist and (b) receive departmental support. [144767]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  We encourage Connexions Partnerships and local authority Youth Services in all regions to promote the involvement of young people in local decision-making. We are aware of 15 youth councils in the North East. All receive indirect government support through Connexions Partnerships and Youth Services. Some Connexions Partnerships in the region are funding joint events with youth councils and one has dedicated £5,000 for the development of youth councils in three Districts. Youth Services are using some of their Transforming Youth Work Development Fund allocation to support the setting up of youth councils.
  The Citizenship programme of study encourages the active participation of young people in the democratic life of their school and the wider community. We do not keep records of the number of school councils by region and such information could not be obtained in the time available without placing an undue burden on schools. Many schools that have councils have found them to be effective ways of involving their pupils directly in decision-making. The Department has funded School Councils UK to produce primary and secondary school toolkits to enable teachers and students to set up effective structures for pupil participation.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  BBC
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many staff in her Department are working solely on the BBC Charter review process. [145461]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 5 January 2004]: The Department will have a core team of five people working solely on Charter review. However there are many others in DCMS and other Government Departments contributing significant amounts of their time to what is a complex, crosscutting programme of work.

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she is taking to ensure that the BBC meets its requirements with regard to the independent productions quotas. [145477]
  306W
  Estelle Morris
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently agreed amendments to the formal Agreement with the BBC to enable OFCOM to enforce the quotas from 29 December 2003, with the power to impose fines on the Corporation for failing to meet the quotas or require any deficit to be made up in the subsequent year or years.

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions she has had with the BBC about the BBC Charter review process; and if she will make a statement. [145478]

  Tessa Jowell
  My Department maintains regular contact with the BBC with frequent discussions on a wide range of issues including Charter review process.

  Civil Servants (Disabilities)
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what targets the Department must meet in relation to the employment of people with disabilities; and if she will make a statement on her Department's progress in meeting these targets. [145599]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department has set aspirational targets for the representation of people with disabilities.

  Target(%)

  Actual(%)

  At SCS

  5

  0

  Other grades

  5

  2.8

  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has set a target to have 5 per cent. of posts filled by people with disabilities by March 2005. Data on disability are collected on the basis of voluntary self-classification. There are currently no staff filling senior post who have declared a disability. At other grades, the percentage of staff declaring a disability has increased from 2.0 per cent. to 2.8 per cent. over the last 12 months.

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress has been made in meeting targets for the proportion of people with disabilities in senior posts in her Department. [145995]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department collects data on disability on a voluntary self-declaration basis. There are currently no members of the Department's senor civil service declaring a disability.

  Departmental Mobile Phones
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much has been spent by her Department on mobile phone calls(a) in the last year and (b) since 1997. [145594]

  Mr. Caborn
  The cost to my Department of mobile phones supplied to ministers and officials was £25,500 in 2000–01, £21,000 in 2001–02, £29,000 in 2002–03 and £30,000 as of the start of January this year. It is not possible to provide figures prior to 2000 save at disproportionate cost.

  Elgin Marbles
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the Government's policy on the Elgin Marbles. [145557]
  307W
  Estelle Morris
  The Government have stated that it considers the Parthenon Sculptures to be a matter for the Trustees of the British Museum, who are independent of government.

  Food Advertising
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received from(a) broadcasters, (b) food manufacturers, (c) advertisers and (d) pressure groups about the regulation of food advertising to children. [145574]

  Estelle Morris
  In May 2003 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport met representatives of several public health promotion organisations to discuss the regulation of broadcast food advertising to children and has also received correspondence from similar organisations. She also met representatives of the Advertising Association on 16 December about this issue. In addition, Ministers have received correspondence from the commercial broadcasting sector on this matter. The Secretary of State has not received any formal representations from the food and drink industry about the regulation of food advertising to children but is aware of the industry's views.

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment the Government has made of whether food advertising contributes to child obesity. [145575]

  Estelle Morris
  The Department has a responsibility only in relation to broadcast advertising. It has made no separate assessment of the impact of food advertising on childhood obesity but will continue to participate in the Food Standards Agency's consultation on its recent review of the promotion of foods to children.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has also asked Ofcom to examine the adequacy of its codes regulating the content of broadcast advertising of food to children and Ofcom has indicated that it will make its own assessment of the evidence.
  The impact of food promotion must be considered in the context of the wide range of factors which may have an influence on the increase in childhood obesity, which the Government are addressing through a number of cross-departmental initiatives.

  Human Remains (Repatriation)
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the Government's policy is on the repatriation of human remains. [145590]

  Estelle Morris
  The Government have recently published the Human Tissue Bill, which includes a clause giving certain national museums a power to move human remains out of their collection, where they wish to do so.
  This will implement the principal recommendation of the Working Group on Human remains. I shall be issuing a consultation document on the rest of the recommendations of the Working Group early in the
  308W
  new year. The results of that consultation will inform the Government's wider response to the Working Group Report.

  IT Contracts
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list information technology contracts in her Department and its predecessors with a value of above £20 million in each of the last 10 years; what the inception date for each system was; when it became fully functional; when it became fully debugged; and what the cost of overruns has been. [146188]

  Mr. Caborn
  My Department has never had an information technology contract to the value of £20 million since its creation in 1992.

  Museums
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make an assessment of the impact of the Government's free admissions policy on museums that are not included in the policy. [145562]

  Estelle Morris
  There are a number of factors that influence museum attendances, and it would be difficult to isolate the specific impact of free admission. The Renaissance in the Regions programme complements the free admission policy by providing substantial support to regional museums. The early indications are that the Renaissance investment is already paying dividends, with a 40 per cent. increase in the number of schools visiting museums in Phase 1 of the programme, and a 74 per cent. increase in contacts between those museums and community groups.

  Ofcom
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the readiness of Ofcom to assume regulatory duties on 29 December. [145086]

  Estelle Morris
  The Office of Communications (Ofcom) is well prepared to take on its regulatory functions and vesting took place as planned on 29 December 2003.

HEALTH

  BCG Vaccination
  Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the number of medical professionals trained in the techniques necessary to administer the BCG vaccination. [144390]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 18 December 2003]: This data is not held centrally. Strategic health authorities are responsible for organising and delivering local immunisation programmes.

  Delayed Discharges
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on delayed discharges
  309W
  in (a) the Craven, Harrogate and Rural District Primary Care Trust and (b) the Hambleton and Richmondshire Primary Care Trust area. [145621]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Service and Financial Framework returns for quarter two of 2003–04 show that there were 24 patients in the Craven, Harrogate and Rural District Primary Care Trust (PCT) area whose transfer of care had been delayed, and six in the Hambleton and Richmondshire PCT area. A copy of the report is available in the Library.
  Craven, Harrogate and Rural District PCT has agreed a strategy with all key stakeholders that aims to maintain people in their own homes where possible with support from a multi-disciplinary team. This will ultimately be available 24 hours a day, with access to diagnostics and secondary care as appropriate.
  Hambleton and Richmondshire PCT is working with North Yorkshire Social Services to develop interim care beds and alternatives to people waiting in the acute hospital.

  Influenza Vaccination
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation of the number of at risk children who would benefit from the current influenza vaccination, broken down(a) by type of condition and (b) by age groups (i) 0 to four and (ii) five to 14 years. [142963]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 9 December 2003]: At their meeting on 10 November 2003, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation agreed that all children aged over six months in an at risk group should be offered flu vaccination.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons the Department does not monitor the uptake of influenza vaccinations for children in at risk groups. [142964]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 9 December 2003]: I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave him on 16 December 2003, Official Report, columns 890–91W.

  Hospital Acquired Infections
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what target he has set for reducing death and disablement from hospital acquired infections. [145047]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  No specific targets were set in the Chief Medical Officer's new action plan, "Winning Ways—Working together to reduce Healthcare Associated Infections", launched on 5 December 2003. We will monitor implementation through the national health service performance management system, strategic health authorities and the mandatory surveillance system.

  Levonelle
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been conducted in teenage girls on the safety of an increase in the dosage of the emergency hormonal contraceptive Levonelle to a single dose of two tablets taken together. [145303]
  310W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The dosing instructions for Levonelle (levonorgestrel 0.75mg) were revised recently to recommend that two tablets should be taken at the same time; previously one tablet was taken with the second tablet 12 hours later. There has been no increase in the dosage as the quantity of levonorgestrel ingested remains the same. This followed advice from the Committee on Safety of Medicines who were satisfied as to the safety and efficacy of this revised regimen and the likely improved compliance. The pivotal evidence in support of the change is a World Health Organisation sponsored study evaluating 4,136 women aged between 14 and 52 years (mean age 27 years) who attended family planning clinics requesting emergency contraception. In excess of 2,700 women were given levonorgestrel, and of these, 439 were teenage girls. Side-effects were minor and no significant difference in the proportion of women developing side-effects was noted between the women taking two levonorgestrel tablets at the same time and those who took them 12 hours apart. A copy of the publication has been placed in the Library.

  Medicines (Advertising)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many staff at the Medicines and Health Care Products Regulatory Agency are employed to investigate breaches of the Medicines (Advertising) Regulations 1994; [145356]
  (2) what the outcomes were of the review of advertising activities carried out by the Medicines and Health Care Products Regulatory Agency earlier this year; which organisations and individuals were invited to contribute to this review; and how the report has been made publicly available; [145360]
  (3) how many of the complaints investigated by the Medicines and Health Care Products Regulatory Agency were found to be in breach of the Medicines (Advertising) Regulations in (a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003; for each of these years, how many of the complaints that were upheld related to advertisements targeted at (i) health professionals and (ii) the public; over how long on average the advertisements had been running before being withdrawn; and what sanctions were employed; [145361]
  (4) what criteria are employed by the Medicines and Health Care Products Regulatory Agency in investigating complaints; and under what conditions pre-vetting of advertising material is carried out; [145362]
  (5) what provisions have been made by the Medicines and Health Care Products Regulatory Agency to take on additional staff to pre-vet advertising material when medicinal products are switched from prescription-only to over-the-counter status; [145357]
  (6) how many complaints were investigated in 2002–03 by the Medicines and Health Care Products Regulatory Agency in response to complaints from (a) health professionals, (b) pharmaceutical companies and (c) the public; [145358]
  (7) what self-regulatory controls are in place for medicine advertising and promotion; and when the Government last carried out a spot check to determine the effectiveness of the self-regulatory system; [145359]

  311W
  (8) what mechanisms exist for independent scrutiny of the Medicines and Health Care Products Regulatory Agency activities in relation to its role to monitor and enforce regulations on pharmaceutical company advertising and promotion. [145363]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The control of medicines advertising is based on a long established system of self regulation underpinned by the statutory role of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). There are two main industry self regulatory bodies, the Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA) and Proprietary Association of Great Britain (PAGB). Both operate codes of practice for advertising of medicines and systems for investigating complaints against their codes. Advertising by PAGB member companies aimed at the public is pre-vetted by the PAGB prior to publication. There are also general controls on non-broadcast and broadcast advertising operated by the Advertising Standards Authority and the Office of Communications.
  Investigation of complaints and routine scrutiny of published advertising for medicines, concentrating on newly licensed products, provide an ongoing check on the effectiveness of the self-regulatory systems for medicines advertising. The MHRA meets regularly with the regulatory and self regulatory bodies to discuss current issues in medicines advertising.
  The MHRA investigates all complaints received about advertising against the requirements set out in the Medicines (Advertising) Regulations 1994. In 2002–03, 157 complaints about medicines advertising were investigated including 93 from health professionals, 16 from pharmaceutical companies and 48 from members of the public. The number of advertisements found to be in breach of the Regulations following investigation by the MHRA were 104 in 2001, 85 in 2002 and 108 in 2003. One quarter concerned advertisements aimed at health professionals and the remainder at the public. Information is not collected by the Agency on the length of time the advertisements had been running before being withdrawn.
  The primary sanction employed where advertising is considered to breach the Regulations is to require immediate withdrawal and amendment of the material. Additionally, in three cases in 2001, one in 2002 and five in 2003, all subsequent material was required to be submitted for pre-vetting. In 13 cases the company was required to issue a corrective statement, one in 2001, one in 2002 and 11 in 2003. One case was referred for enforcement action in 2001 and two in 2003. A public statement was also recently made on the outcome of three investigations into inducements to pharmacists.
  The MHRA has published criteria in Guidance Note 23—Advertising and Promotion of medicines in the UK (a copy of which is available in the Library) based on which it will consider requiring advertising material to be submitted for pre-vetting, including:

  (i) where a newly licensed product, subject to intensive monitoring, is placed on the market;

  (ii) where a product is reclassified, such as from prescription only medicine to pharmacy; or

  (iii) where previous advertising for a product has breached the Regulations.

  312W
  A recent internal MHRA review considered the procedures of the advertising unit in the regulation of advertising for medicines in the UK. It identified measures to increase and improve the targeting of pre-vetting, increase the use of corrective statements for misleading advertising, take rapid action on complaints prioritising those from health professionals and increase transparency by the publication of reports on completed actions on complaints. The outcome of the review was endorsed by the Medicines Commission and has been submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. A copy of the report has also been placed in the Library.
  The MHRA employs four staff whose primary role is to regulate advertising for medicines, including investigation of breaches of the Medicines (Advertising) Regulations 1994. These staff draw on the wider resources of the MHRA to provide additional specialist advice on advertising casework as required. The MHRA anticipates that it will be able to manage any increase in the requirement for pre-vetting due to increases in reclassification from prescription only to over-the-counter status from within its existing resources.
  The National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee recently scrutinised the work of the MHRA, including its role in reviewing medicines advertising and promotion but did not make any recommendations in this area nor suggest any further review was necessary. The recent initiative to publish on the MHRA website the outcome of complaints investigations will increase the transparency of the MHRA's role in enforcing the regulations on advertising and promotion of medicines.

  Screening Programmes
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in proactive screening programmes as a result of departmental awareness-raising schemes; what screening programmes are operating in each health authority area; and what action is being taken to increase screening in areas that are underspending in this area. [144813]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The national breast and cervical screening programmes operate in each strategic health authority area. A number of other national screening programmes are currently being developed. These include screening for Down's syndrome where presently 75 per cent. of maternity units have a screening programme in place. 210,000 babies have been screened under the newborn hearing screening programme since it started. Newborn screening for sickle cell disease is in place in London and West Midlands. Raising public and professional awareness is a key aspect in the development of all screening programmes. Funding to implement screening programmes is mostly included in baseline financial allocations to primary care trusts. In keeping with the decision to enable local PCTs to decide their priorities in the light of their own needs, PCTs decide the allocation of resources locally.

  Smoking
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to target smoking cessation activity on middle-aged women. [145227]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The national health service Stop Smoking Services are available to all smokers regardless of age or gender.
  The tobacco information programme is designed to address all sections of the adult population and every opportunity is taken to obtain editorial coverage on the health pages of national newspapers and women's magazines.
  314W
  We are not aware of any specific reason to target "middle aged women" separately. Women aged 35–60 have lower smoking rates than men of the same age and lower than those of young women.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of tuberculosis were reported in(a) England, (b) each NHS region and (c) each strategic health authority in each year since 1996. [146214]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  This information is publicly available on the Health Protection Agency website at www.hpa.org.uk/infections/topics_az/tb/epidemiology/tables.htm

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Antisocial Behaviour
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the number of anti-social behaviour offences occurring over Halloween relative to other periods of the year. [145343]

  Ms Blears
  No assessment has been made of the number of anti-social behaviour related offences occurring over Halloween, relative to other periods of the year.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Anti-Social Behaviour Orders have been applied for in the Vale of York in each of the past three years. [145123]

  Ms Blears
  The number of notifications received by the Home Office of applications for Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) within the North Yorkshire Magistrates Courts Committee (MCC) area, which includes the Vale of York, up to 30 June 2003 (latest available) is given in the table. All of the applications have resulted in an ASBO being issued.

  The number of applications for ASBOs in North Yorkshire, as reported to the Home Office, from 1 June 20001 to 30 June 2003 (latest available)

  Number

  1 June 2000 to 31 December 2000

  0

  1 January 2001 to 31 December 2001

  7

  1 January 2002 to 30 November 2002

  0

  31 December 2002 to 30 June 2003

  2

  Total

  9

  1From 1 April 1999 up to 31 May 2000 data collected by police force area (pfa).
  Note:
  Following implementation of the Police Reform Act (2 December 2002), data for December 2002 is incorporated into the first quarter 2003 data.

  Asylum and Immigration
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many families are detained under asylum and immigration legislation; and for how long each has been detained. [143801]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 15 December 2003]: The latest available information shows that at the end of September 2003 1,575 people were detained solely under the Immigration Act, of whom 1,270 had sought asylum at some stage. Information on the number of these who were detained as part of a family group is unavailable.
  However, IND internal management information indicates that on 8 December 38 children were in detention. This information also indicates that the average time for which children are detained in UK removal centres is about 10 days. This figure is skewed
  316W
  somewhat due to some long-stay cases. In fact, the bulk of cases are dealt with in a short period. We are working hard to ensure that where children are detained this is for as short a time as possible and are implementing additional measures to ensure the welfare of detained families with children. These measures include requiring ministerial authority to detain any child for longer than 28 days and ensuring that there are no administrative delays which might extend their detention by giving oversight of all children in immigration detention to a senior Home Office official.

  Crime Reduction initiatives
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money has been invested, and how many schemes have received funding(a) in Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East, (b) in the north-east and (c) in total under the Building Safer Communities initiative. [144748]

  Ms Blears
  Under the Building Safer Communities Fund (BSC), the following allocations were made in 2003–04 to the Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs) covering the Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency:Middlesbrough CDRP—£312,409 for 20 schemes
  Redcar and Cleveland CDRP—£168,331 for 13 schemes
  The North East total allocation for 2003–04 under BSC is £3,549,624.23 CDRP plans were approved and are operational across the region in the current financial year.
  Direct funding under BSC to CDRPs in England and Wales totals £72.3 million in 2003–04, involving 376 CDRP plans, each of which includes numerous projects and schemes.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action is being taken in(a) Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East and (b) the north east to help crime and disorder reduction partnerships deliver crime reduction; and if he will make a statement. [144749]

  Ms Blears
  A wide range of activities is taking place in Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, and also in the north east as a whole, to help Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs) deliver crime reduction. These are normally funded through Home Office programmes such as the Building Safer Communities Fund, Building Capacity Fund, and Basic Command Unit Fund.
  Examples of activities that draw on Home Office funds include, in the Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East area, a dedicated drugs unit being introduced in the Redcar and Cleveland CDRP, and a `Dealer a Day' initiative initiated by the police commander. This initiative has led to over 950 arrests and the recovery of substantial quantities of drugs, cash and stolen goods. In the East Cleveland area specifically, Home Office funding has led to CCTV

  317W
  schemes in Saltburn, Guisborough, Loftus, and Marske. In Middlesbrough, recent initiatives have included tackling burglaries in sheds, garages, and outbuildings, and tackling vehicle crime by focusing on `at risk' groups and locations e.g. subsidised security devices, additional security patrols.
  In the north east as a whole, significant developments include the establishment of a multi-agency Regional Drugs Intelligence Unit at a cost of £500,000 over two years, funded by the Home Office Police Standards Unit, and the extension of intensive criminal justice intervention programmes to Newcastle, Sunderland, Hartlepool, and Stockton in addition to the existing programme in Middlesbrough.
  The Government Office for the north east provides advice, training and support to all the CDRPs in the region. They act as a conduit for sharing best practice between partnerships, for example, funding a seminar in Middlesbrough for CDRPs across the country with similar characteristics to Middlesbrough, to share common issues and solutions. They regularly attend CDRP meetings to offer advice and information on funding and good practice and to support performance improvement.
  The Home Office has introduced a self-assessment framework (SAF) for Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships and Drug Action Teams in England and Community Safety Partnerships in Wales to assist them to improve their performance as partnerships. The SAF is a useful tool to promote continuous improvement in both strategic and operational delivery of the crime reduction and misuse of drugs agendas.
  The Home Office are also updating the existing guidance for partnerships on audits and strategies in preparation for the next round of triennial audits which partnerships must produce by April 2005. This new web based step by step toolkit will be available on the Crime Reduction Website from February 2004.
  Key crime levels have fallen steadily in the north east in recent years. Between 1998–99 and 2002–03 vehicle crime has fallen by 23 per cent. and domestic burglary has fallen by 25 per cent.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action is being taken in(a) Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East and (b) the north east (i) to reduce gun crime and (ii) to disrupt drugs markets; and if he will make a statement. [144750]

  Caroline Flint
  We are developing a strong programme to tackle gun crime on a number of fronts, including:tackling the links to drug supply and crime;
  reducing the supply and availability of firearms;
  effective police operations to drive down firearm offences;
  tough laws and effective enforcement;
  engaging the worst affected communities to address the underlying gun culture.
  In Middlesbrough, Cleveland police operate a dealer-a-day policy whereby they undertake to arrest at least one drugs dealer in the town every day, 365 days a year. It has recently completed its second year of operation
  318W
  and since its launch on 3 December 2001, 926 people have been arrested. Drugs including cocaine, crack cocaine, heroin, ecstasy, amphetamine, and cannabis have been recovered with a street value of nearly £950,000. Officers also seized over £200,000 in cash during the raids. Prison sentences exceeding 200 years have been given by the courts, coupled with other forms of sentencing ranging from fines, community work and community rehabilitation, to suspended sentences, supervision orders and drug treatment and testing orders. In July the scheme was extended to cover East Cleveland in July 2003 and similar success is expected there.
  Regionally, with the support of Government Office North East, the Police Standards Unit has funded the establishment of a Regional Drugs Intelligence Unit based at Durham Constabulary which brings together analysts from the three north east police forces in one dedicated unit to improve intelligence led work to tackle middle market drug dealing across the region. Set up in October 2003, this unit's work will link in to other information and intelligence gathering initiatives already underway in the north east, including asset recovery.
  The north east, and the Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East area in particular, experiences relatively low levels of gun crime. For this reason, Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships prioritise actions on addressing drug crime, burglary and vehicle crime in these areas.
  We are taking action to tackle the misuse of air weapons. The Anti-Social Behaviour Act will:
  raise the age limit for owning air weapons from 14 to 17;
  restrict their use without adult supervision;
  ban the carrying of replicas or air weapons in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse; and
  ban the sale, manufacture and import of tandem cartridge air systems, such as the Brocock, and require the licensing of those already held as they are particularly vulnerable to conversion to fire live ammunition.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Government-funded schemes resulting in the installation of CCTV cameras have received crime and disorder reduction partnership funds in(a) Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East and (b) the north east since 2001. [144751]

  Ms Blears
  Under the Crime Reduction Programme CCTV Initiative, two funding rounds were introduced.
  Six schemes were approved in Middlesbrough and six in the Redcar and Cleveland Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) areas.
  45 schemes in total were approved for the north east.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action is being taken to strengthen co-ordination of local partnerships to ensure they are able to deliver the crime and drugs agenda in(a) Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East and (b) the north-east. [144752]
  319W
  Ms Blears
  The Home Office and the Government Office in the North East Region (GONE), are working with Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs) and Drug Action Teams (DATs) to ensure the further integration of their work. Guidance on integration was issued to CDRPs and DATs in November 2003. The aim is to simplify local working relationships, give greater recognition to common interests and provide the right framework to enable the effective delivery of the crime reduction and drugs agendas. The crime and drugs teams have been fully integrated within GONE since June 2002.
  Middlesbrough and Redcar and Cleveland, which are both unitary authorities, are working towards integration of their CDRPs and DATs by April 2004. To support this process the Home Office has introduced a self-assessment framework (SAF), which will enable CDRPs and DATs to assess their performance as partnerships and will assist the GONE in managing the improvement in both their strategic and operational delivery.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on(a) improved information sharing between crime reduction partnerships and (b) the sharing of good practice techniques between police forces; and how such practices have benefited the residents of Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East. [144754]

  Ms Blears
  Effective data exchange and analysis is a prerequisite of productive partnership working and crime reduction. Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRP) are encouraged to share information to tackle crime and criminality more effectively within their partnership.
  The Home Office Crime Reduction and Community Safety Group is working with the Government Offices in the regions to ensure effective information sharing and data analysis.
  The Government Office for the North East is working with every agency in the North East Region who are partners on CDRPs to enhance their data in order to facilitate information sharing, and has developed an IT solution, North East Region Information Sharing System (NERISS), to this end.
  Middlesbrough is being used as a pilot site for local data sharing on burglary dwelling to support problem solving and best practice experience nationally.
  The Government Office has also been carrying out a research project on Effective Practice and will compile a compendium of all of the initiatives of a crime and disorder nature in the Region. The findings will be published on the internet for use by all practitioners as a Best Practice library.
  One of the main roles of the Home Office Police Standards Unit (PSU) is to exchange good practice in order to support the improvement of police performance. The Unit has been working with the Cleveland Police Force on several projects to tackle issues such as burglary reduction with the 'Safer Tees Valley Partnership' to reduce repeat victimisation and the introduction of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) forcewide as a tool to improve the
  320W
  detection of all crime. The PSU are currently working with the National Centre for Policing Excellence among other partners to simplify the process of sharing good practice and provide greater access, preferably with a single point of contact.
  Government Agencies Information Network (GAIN) is a multi-agency group bringing together intelligence and investigation officers from enforcement agencies in central and local Government to share information for the purposes of crime reduction. The first Strategic Group Meeting of the Regional GAIN Board occurred this month and a range of issues is being progressed within the north-east.
  Improved information sharing in Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East and across the north-east has allowed the effective targeting of a number of known criminals. This has contributed to significant reductions in burglary and vehicle crime in the area, especially in Middlesbrough, where burglary fell 22.9 per cent., thefts of motor vehicles fell 15.9 per cent. and thefts from motor vehicles fell 5.6 per cent. between 2001–02 and 2002–03. In Langbaurgh over the same period, burglary fell 20.7 per cent., though thefts of and from motor vehicles both rose.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on police community visibility schemes with particular reference to mobile police stations; and how he estimates such initiatives can reduce crime in the area covered by the Cleveland Police Force. [144755]

  Ms Blears
  It is for the Chief Constable to decide how best to deploy available resources according to operational priorities and objectives.
  Cleveland Police is in the process of reviewing the accessibility of service to more rural areas of the force where mobile police stations may well be a solution. In addition the force is reviewing Community Policing models, in keeping with the Chief Constable's vision of `Putting People First'. This vision of community policing aims to impact positively on public reassurance in terms of visibility of and accessibility, to officers by providing a minimum level of policing to all communities. This is in line with the National Policing Plan 2004–07 which sets as a key priority for the police service
  "Providing a citizen focused service to the public … which responds to the needs of individuals and communities and inspires confidence in the police…".

  Driving Disqualifications
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people were disqualified from driving in the last five years; [145332]
  (2) how many people were disqualified from driving since 2000 as a result of (a) drink-driving, (b) speeding and (c) dangerous or reckless driving. [145333]

  Ms Blears
  Available information up to 2001, which has been taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database, is given in the tables. Information for 2002 will be available early in 2004.
  321W

  Table A: Number of persons disqualified1 from driving at all courts for motoring offence, England and Wales, 1997–2001

  Persons disqualified

  1997

  171,100

  1998

  159,500

  1999

  170,500

  2000

  168,900

  2001

  177,200

  1 Includes persons disqualified under s 35 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (penalty points system).

  Table B: Number of persons disqualified from driving at all courts by offence group, England and Wales, 2000 and 2001

  Offence group

  2000

  2001

  Driving etc after consuming alcohol or taking drugs1

  75,200

  74,500

  Speed limit offences2

  11,000

  10,800

  Dangerous driving3

  3,700

  3,700

  1 Offences under the Road Traffic Act 1988 sec 4(1), 4(2), 5(1)(a), 5(1)(b), 6(4) and 777(6).
  2 Offences under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, Motor Vehicles (Speed Limits on Motorways) Regs 1973 and Parks Regulation (Amendment) Act 1926-Byelaws made thereunder.
  3 An offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988 sec 2 as amended by the Road Traffic Act 1991 sec 2. There is no specific offence of `reckless driving'.

  Immigration Offences (Employers)
  Mr. Matins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many employers have been(a) prosecuted and (b) convicted in relation to an offence under section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 in each of the last six years for which figures are available; and what penalties were imposed.[142158]

  Beverley Hughes
  The latest available information on the number of persons proceeded against and those found guilty under section 8 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1996, together with the penalties imposed, is shown in the table.

  Number of persons proceeded against and those found guilty of offences under section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, England and Wales 1997 to 2002

  Offence description/Statute

  Persons1 proceeded against

  Number of offences involved

  Persons1 found guilty

  Persons2 fined

  Persons1 not separately dealt with2

  Employing a person subject to immigration control who has attained the age of 16/Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 section 8

  19973

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19983

  1

  1

  1

  —

  1

  19993

  4

  23

  1

  1

  —

  20003

  10

  32

  4

  4

  —

  20013

  5

  65

  1

  1

  —

  2002

  2

  22

  1

  1

  —

  1 Principal immigration offence basis.
  2 Indicates that a substantive penalty has been imposed on a non immigration offence dealt with at the same time.
  3 Data have been revised since they were published in the command paper "Control of Immigration Statistics United Kingdom 2001".
  The Government have consulted publicly on proposals to strengthen the checks employers are required to carry out under section 8, with a view to improving compliance with and the enforcement of the
  322W
  legislation. The Government are currently considering possible measures in this area as part of their wider strategy on managed migration.
  In the long term, a national identity cards scheme will reduce the burden on legitimate employers who already check the immigration status of their employees by giving them an easily understood card to check. It will also assist in prosecuting unscrupulous employers who employ illegal workers for less than the minimum wage and undercut legitimate companies
  Information on those people proceeded against under the Immigration Acts was published on 27 November in the command paper "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom 2002" (Cm 6053), a copy of which can be found in the Library of the House.

  Imutran Xenotransplantation Research
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many letters the Home Office has received regarding Imutran xenotransplantation research. [143690]

  Caroline Flint
  The Home Office computerised correspondence tracking system introduced in two stages during 2003 shows that as of 11 November 2003 we have received 228 letters from Members of Parliament about the Imutran xenotransplantation research since 30 January 2003 and 289 letters from members of the public since 25 May 2003. We have no reliable record of the number of letters received on this subject before the introduction of the computerised correspondence tracking system.
  I wrote to all Members of Parliament on 15 December 2003 answering the points raised in the latest letter sent by Uncaged Campaigns about the Imutran xenotransplantation research.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the latest findings of investigations into Imutran xenotransplantation research. [143700]

  Caroline Flint
  In November 2000, after carefully considering the arguments for an independent judicial inquiry into the matters raised in "Diaries of Despair", the Uncaged Campaigns report on the Imutran xenotransplantation research carried out at Huntingdon Life Sciences, the then Home Secretary (Jack Straw) asked the Chief Inspector of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate to examine the available evidence relating to compliance with the authorities granted to Imutran Limited under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. This compliance review was undertaken as part of the Inspectorate's routine statutory inspection and reporting function. The Chief Inspector's report was published on 13 July 2001 and is available on the Home Office website. Copies were also placed in the House Library. The Chief Inspector's review covered five years of work, involving many thousands of scientific procedures. The review took around 300 man-hours to complete and included scrutiny of all study documents, including material not available during the normal inspection process. The Chief Inspector's findings confirmed that the general level of compliance was good. He also identified five instances of non-compliance by the surgical team. Three
  323W
  of these were already known to the Home Office and were dealt with in 1997. Neither of the two new infringements merited prosecution and both were dealt with by issuing letters of admonition to those responsible.
  The Chief Inspector's review identified no new issues requiring further action or investigations and none have been carried out. However, all subsequent representations and evidence received by the Home Office regarding the Imutran research have been thoroughly and carefully considered and full answers have been provided to them. This includes additional papers published in 2003 by Uncaged Campaigns on its website. All of these papers, and more, were available when the chief inspector carried out his compliance review. They provide no new insights into these matters, nor do we accept that they call into question Home Office conduct or regulation of the Imutran research in any way. In addition, in October 2003, we provided the Home Affairs Committee with a detailed response to a number questions about the Imutran research. This response is available on the Home Office website.
  The Imutran licences were revoked in July 2000, following a decision by Imutran and its parent company, Novartis, to transfer its research programme to North America. No xenotransplantation work is now undertaken at Huntingdon Life Sciences.
  I wrote to all Members of Parliament on 15 December 2003 answering the points raised in the latest letter sent by Uncaged Campaigns about the Imutran xenotransplantation research.

  O2/Police Information and Technology Organisation
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the role of individual police authorities is in the public private partnership between 02 and the Police Information and Technology Organisation; and if he will make a statement. [145192]

  Ms Blears
  The Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO) is a non-departmental public body of the Home Office. The PITO Board includes Association of Police Authorities (APA) members who represent individual police authorities.
  The Airwave contract for the new police radio system was awarded by PITO to BT under the Private Finance Initiative, and novated to Airwave mmO2 in November 2001 following the demerger of BT and mmO2.
  The Airwave contract was approved by the PITO Board and agreed by all police authorities. It is monitored by the Airwave Programme Board, where APA members represent the interests of individual police authorities.

  Police Funding
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what account was taken of the extra bank holidays in 2004–05 in the police financial settlement. [140577]
  324W
  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 1 December 2003]: Account is not taken of variable numbers of bank holidays when determining the annual police grant settlement. Accommodating changes from year to year is a matter for police local management.

  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional financial assistance is available from the Home Office to police authorities to cover the cost of large scale and expensive investigations. [144350]

  Ms Blears
  Police forces are normally expected to meet the cost of large-scale investigations from their own budget and general reserves.
  In cases where unforeseen and exceptional costs are substantial, the Home Secretary may consider providing grant towards the additional costs. Cases are considered in the light of individual circumstances and subject to funds being available. Forces will normally be expected to meet initial costs up to 1 per cent. of their annual budget.

  Murder Investigations
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what account was taken of the financial impact of concurrent murder investigations in Nottingham in the recent police financial settlement. [140579]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 1 December 2003]: I have decided exceptionally this year to provide a standard rate increase of 3.25 per cent. in general grant for each police authority in England and Wales.
  Provision is made within the police funding formula for projected levels of crime, but not at the level of each individual case. It is a matter for the Chief Constable and Police Authority to determine, within the overall resources available, the deployment of resources according to operational priorities and objectives.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the sum representing the difference between the overall 4.2 per cent. cash rise and the 3.25 per cent. standard increase in allocation to police authorities will be spent; how much of it will be allocated to the London Metropolitan Police area; when it will be paid; and if he will make a statement. [141103]

  Ms Blears
  Total provision for policing to be supported by grant will increase by 4.2 per cent. in 2004–05. This includes principal formula police grant, revenue support grant and the share of national non-domestic rates available to police authorities, specific grants, capital grants, direct Home Office spending and the share of formula spending attributable to local council tax precept under revenue support grant arrangements.
  All police authorities in England and Wales will receive a standard increase in unhypothecated general police grant (comprising Home Office police grant, ODPM revenue support grant and national non domestic rates) of at least 3.25 per cent.

  325W
  In addition, forces will receive grant for a number of specific initiatives. We announced details of the Crime Fighting Fund on 19 November. The Metropolitan Police will receive £73.0 million. Details of other specific initiatives from which the Metropolitan Police Service will benefit are still to be announced. These include Basic Command Unit funding, funding for Community Support Officers, the Street Crime Initiative, special priority Payments, the DNA expansion programme, counter terrorism funding as well as funding for capital purposes. The Metropolitan Police will continue to benefit from 75 per cent. funding of the London Allowance, funding towards free travel for Metropolitan Police Officers and further capital funds towards the Command Control Communications Information system project.

  Police (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ensure that there is a new timetable for an improvement in the quality of police files in Gloucestershire by means of Crown Prosecution Service participation in police training. [144015]

  Ms Blears
  Senior crown prosecutors, including the Chief Crown Prosecutor, have participated in 20 police training exercises in Gloucestershire between August and December 2003. This training has covered a number of issues including: the new charging arrangements; evidential requirements in racially aggravated offences; police file preparation and management; disclosure issues; and identification evidence.
  The result of those training exercises is being evaluated and there are plans for a limited number of further training exercises in January and February next year and it is likely the police Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) training programme will be reviewed again at that point with a view to further joint CPS/police training during next year.
  There have also been selective police/CPS training exercises designed to improve the quality of files in particularly troublesome cases and these have included rape offences and racially aggravated offences.

  Presidential Visit
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the estimated cost was of the police operation to provide security for the visit of President Bush. [143761]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 15 December 2003]: The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police tells me that the estimated cost of the policing operation in London for this event is £4.2 million. We also understand from Durham Constabulary that the estimated cost of the policing operation for the President's visit to Durham is £1 million.

  Roadworks
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department at what time the(a) M20 and (b) M26 were closed to traffic on 15 December; at what
  326W
  time each was reopened to traffic on 16 December; and for what reason the roads were not reopened sooner. [145532]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 5 December 2003]: Sections of the M20 and M26 motorways were closed to traffic at 10.30pm on 15 December and reopened at 7am on 16 December.
  The closure was necessary to enable the police to undertake a full investigation into the three deaths which unfortunately occurred as a result of an accident there.
  The length of such investigations is affected, for example, by the need to ensure that small items of evidence are not overlooked, or where artificial light may not be adequate for the proper identification and interpretation of tyre marks, or other vehicles need to be prevented from destroying or obliterating evidence by passing over it.

  Sexual Offences
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what requirements need to be satisfied in order to issue a Risk of Sexual Harm Order. [143479]

  Paul Goggins
  The Risk of Sexual Harm Order (RSHO) is a new civil preventative order which is being introduced in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. RSHOs will be available in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The RSHO is designed to protect children aged under 16 (17 in Northern Ireland) from sexual harm by adults. We know that some abusers try to prepare children for sexual activity by exposing them to sexually explicit language or images. The RSHO is intended to help the police to prevent such behaviour.
  A Chief Officer of police will be able to apply for, and a court will be able to make, a RSHO in respect of a person aged 18 or over where it appears they have, on at least two occasions either:

  (a)engaged in sexual activity involving a child or in the presence of a child;

  (b) caused or incited a child to watch a person engage in sexual activity or to look at a moving or still image that is sexual;

  (c)given a child anything that relates to sexual activity or contains a reference to such activity;

  (d) communicated with a child, where any part of the communication is sexual;

  And a RSHO is necessary to protect a child (or children) from sexual harm from the defendant.
  An application for an order will be by complaint to a magistrates court. The behaviour on which the application for a RSHO is based need not amount, in itself, to a criminal offence and the defendant does not need to have a previous conviction for a sexual (or any other) offence.
  A RSHO may prohibit the defendant from doing anything which is necessary to protect a particular child, a group of children or children in general from sexual harm. The order will last for a fixed period of at least two years, or until further notice.

  327W
  Interim RSHOs will be available to allow prohibitions to be put in place prior to the main application for a RSHO being determined. RSHOs, and interim RSHOs, can be varied, renewed or discharged on further application to the magistrates court by either a chief officer of police or defendant.
  The defendant may appeal to the Crown court against the making of a RSHO or interim RSHO or any order made by a court to vary, renew or discharge a RSHO or interim RSHO.
  A breach, without reasonable excuse, of any prohibition contained in a RSHO or interim RSHO will be a criminal offence punishable by up to five years imprisonment.

  Speed Cameras
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how much revenue Essex police received from the operation of(a) speed and (b) red light cameras in 2002–03; [145166]
  (2) how much was levied in fines resulting from (a) speed and (b) red light cameras in Essex in each of the last five years. [145167]

  Caroline Flint
  Information on the revenue raised from speed and red light offences detected by camera is not available.
  However the table shows, for the Essex police force area, the number of fixed penalties ordered to be paid and the number of court fines for such offences in the calendar years 1997 to 2001 (latest available). Information for 2002 will be available early in 2004.
  Not all fines and fixed penalties will have been paid.

  Fixed penalty and court proceedings data for speeding and traffic light offences by cameras1.2.3 in the Essex police force area

  Fixed penalties

  Court

  Offence and year

  Number of tickets

  Estimated revenue4

  Number of fines5

  Total amount of fine (£)

  Average fine (£)

  Speeding offences2

  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

  Traffic light offences3

  1997

  3,400

  136,800

  860

  67,900

  79

  1998

  2,000

  78,900

  910

  84,600

  93

  1999

  2,700

  109,500

  590

  48,900

  83

  2000

  3,800

  165,500

  850

  67,700

  80

  2001

  3,700

  220,980

  1,100

  88,400

  78

  1Automatic 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 Offences under the Road Traffic Act 1988 and The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994.
  4 Paid i.e. no further action.
  5 Estimate based on £40 fixed penalty charge to October 2000. From November 2000 the penalty was raised to £60.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fixed penalty notices were issued to motorists caught at each location of a fixed speed camera within a Safety Camera Partnership in(a) the year prior to installation and (b) the year subsequent to installation. [142235]
  328W
  Caroline Flint
  Information collected centrally on the number of fixed penalty notices issued as a result of detection by camera does not identify the type of camera used or its location.

  Stop and Search
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times stop and search powers under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 were used in the vicinity of RAF Fairford between 6 March and 27 April. [144695]

  Ms Blears
  There were 56 searches conducted between 6 March and 27 April 2003 under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 in the vicinity of RAF Fairford between 6 March and 27 April.

  Young Offender Institutions
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how often children have been held in special cells in Young Offender Institutions since January, broken down by institution; and for how long in each case. [144361]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 15 December 2003]: Data on the number of times children have been held in a special cell in each juvenile establishment since January 2003 is shown in the following table.
  Special accommodation may only be used for the temporary confinement of a violent or refractory prisoner and not as punishment. As soon as the original justification for the use of the special accommodation has ceased, the young person will be moved from that accommodation.

  Establishment

  Number of occasions

  Ashfield

  0

  Brinsford

  5

  Brockhill

  0

  Bullwood Hall

  3

  Castington

  4

  Eastwood Park

  0

  Feltham

  32

  Hindley

  1

  Holloway

  0

  Huntercombe

  46

  Lancaster Farms

  27

  New Hall

  6

  Onley

  5

  Pare

  1

  Stoke Heath

  14

  Thorn Cross

  0

  Warren Hill

  6

  Werrington

  0

  Wetherby

  4

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Assembly Election
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to make an assessment of the procedures for obtaining postal votes in Northern Ireland; and how many(a) people applied

  329W
  for a postal vote in each Northern Ireland constituency and (b) postal votes were issued for the Assembly election on 26 November. [142656]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Electoral Commission, which has statutory responsibility for reporting on the conduct of elections, will issue a report on the recent Assembly elections in the spring. This will include an assessment of the procedures for obtaining postal votes.
  It is not possible at this stage to provide information on how many people applied for postal votes in each Northern Ireland constituency. I will ask the Chief Electoral Officer to write to the hon. Member. However, statistics (including postal proxies) on the issuing of postal votes are as follows:

  Constituency

  Total number of Absent vote issues

  Belfast, East

  502

  Belfast, North

  620

  Belfast, South

  573

  Belfast, West

  543

  East Antrim

  477

  E. Londonderry

  1,427

  Fermanagh & South Tyrone

  4,327

  Foyle

  1,434

  Lagan Valley

  1,022

  Mid-Ulster

  2,814

  Newry & Armagh

  1,863

  North Antrim

  1,061

  North Down

  563

  South Antrim

  557

  South Down

  1,701

  Strangford

  709

  Upper Bann

  1,118

  West Tyrone

  2,942

  Total

  24,253

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many eligible voters in each Northern Ireland constituency were turned away from polling stations in Northern Ireland on 26 November for not having correct identification for the Assembly election. [142661]

  Mr. Spellar
  The type of identification brought by voters was recorded for approximately 92 per cent. of all voters at the Assembly election on 26 November. Particularly during the busiest times of polling day not all information on identification was recorded.
  Approximately 3,493 electors were recorded as having brought the wrong identification documents or no identification whatsoever. However, there is evidence that some of these returned before the close of poll with an alternative, correct form of ID and were able to cast their vote at that time.
  The totals recorded are as follows:

  Constituency

  Total number of voters with wrong or no identification

  Belfast, East

  128

  Belfast, North

  148

  Belfast, South

  139

  Belfast, West

  246

  East Antrim

  145

  E. Londonderry

  133

  Fermanagh & South Tyrone

  254

  330W

  Constituency

  Total number of votes with wrong or no identification

  Foyle

  211

  Lagan Valley

  153

  Mid-Ulster

  266

  Newry & Armagh

  304

  North Antrim

  240

  North Down

  125

  South Antrim

  161

  South Down

  192

  Strangford

  158

  Upper Bann

  247

  West Tyrone

  243

  Belfast City Airport
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with the main interested parties and local resident groups in relation to the review of the Planning Agreement affecting(a) traffic volumes and (b) operational hours at Belfast City Airport; and if he will make a statement. [145177]

  Angela Smith
  I have not received any approach from Belfast City Airport about a review of the Planning Agreement and therefore have had no discussions with the main interested parties or local residents groups in relation to either traffic volumes or operational hours.

  Benefit Payment Arrangements
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much funding was allocated for the advertising campaign for the direct payment of pensions and benefits. [145312]

  Mr. Spellar
  The amount of funding allocated to the advertising campaign for direct payment in Northern Ireland to March 2004 is £728,930. To date the Social Security Agency has invested £591,430.

  Civil Service (Fair Employment)
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what options are available to applicants to the Northern Ireland Civil Service when declaring their religion on its fair employment monitoring form; what plans he has to amend the arrangements to cater for a wider variety of community backgrounds; and if he will make a statement. [142691]

  Mr. Pearson
  Since 1990, employers in Northern Ireland, including the Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS), have had a legal duty under fair employment legislation to monitor the community background of their workforces and of those applying to fill vacancies.
  The legislation requires the NICS to ask applicants, in writing, whether they belong to the Protestant or the Roman Catholic community or to neither community. The NICS meets this requirement by asking each applicant to complete an equal opportunities monitoring form, which is included with every job application form. Applicants are asked to select one of the following options:
  I have a Protestant community background
  I have a Roman Catholic community background

  331W
  I have neither a Protestant nor a Roman Catholic community background
  There are no plans to amend the monitoring Regulations and, as the NICS is bound by these Regulations, neither are there plans to change the Service's current arrangements to include other community backgrounds.

  Compensation Agency
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many claims for compensation have been paid by the Compensation Agency in respect of damage to Orange halls in each of the past five years, broken down by county; and what the total value was of the compensation paid for these claims; [145551]
  (2) how many claims for compensation made to the Compensation Agency have been unsuccessful in respect of damage to Orange halls in each of the past five years, broken down by county; [145552]
  (3) how many claims for compensation have been made to the Compensation Agency in respect of damage to Orange halls in each of the past five years, broken down by county; [145553]
  (4) how many Chief Constable's certificates have been issued in respect of claims made to the Compensation Agency for damage to Orange halls in each of the past five years, broken down by county. [145554]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Chief Executive of the Compensation Agency has written to the hon. Gentleman. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.

  Doctors
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the impact on the Health Service in Northern Ireland of the restriction in working hours of junior doctors under the European Working Time Directive, with particular reference to(a) ward numbers and (b) specialist services. [144264]

  Angela Smith
  From August 2004, doctors in training will become subject to the working restrictions applicable under the European Working Time Directive. A substantial programme of work is under way, in partnership with the HPSS Boards and Trusts here, to ensure compliance with this Directive across all employing organisations, and all specialties within each organisation.
  Trusts have been asked to provide action plans showing how they will achieve compliance with the EWTD by August 2004. The HPSS Junior Doctors Implementation Support Group, established in 2001 to oversee implementation of the New Deal for Doctors in Training, is currently assessing these Action Plans and is taking a regional view of how EWTD will impact. The Implementation Support Group is expected to make recommendations to my Department shortly on the best way forward.
  To support HPSS Employers, my Department has already published a range of guidance on EWTD, monitoring Junior Doctor working patterns and
  332W
  developing new means of delivering the service. In addition, we are currently monitoring the progress of a number of pilot projects that are being undertaken within the NHS in England. These pilots are developing and testing further methods of how employers can achieve compliance with the European Working Time Directive. My Department will be seeking to determine which of these pilots can apply in an equally beneficial manner within the Health Service in Northern Ireland.

  Fuel Poverty
  Mr. Roy Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to assist those pensioners with small occupational pensions or savings who are not eligible for the Warm Homes Scheme to upgrade to a non-manual central heating system. [145313]

  Mr. Spellar
  The eligibility criteria for the Warm Homes Scheme is kept under regular review to ensure that as many vulnerable people as possible can benefit. For example, it was recently revised to include pension credit.
  Pensioners with additional income who are ineligible for assistance through the Warm Homes Scheme may qualify for a Disabled Facilities Grant which includes provision for assistance towards the cost of replacing heating systems.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the average time taken in the last 12 months was to process assessments of applications to upgrade heating systems through the Northern Ireland Housing Executive's Disabled Facilities Grant Scheme, broken down by Health and Social Services trust area. [145314]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information is not available in the format requested as works required to be carried out in a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) application are not recorded separately. DFG covers a wide range of works for access to and around a house as well as facilities within a house. Where a heating upgrade is required this is likely to form only a small part of the works required.
  In DFG cases generally, the average time taken from date of receipt of preliminary inquiry to the issue of schedule of works for DFGs in the year up to the end of October 2003 was 278 days. This figure includes the time for the occupational therapist's assessment, which took an average of 192 days.
  Once the applicant has decided to proceed with the grant application, the average time from the receipt of completed documentation to the issue of formal approval, including the test of resources, was 131 days. Over the last six months 98 per cent. of cases have been processed within the agreed target time of 26 weeks.
  The Housing Executive is currently reviewing its arrangements regarding the processing of DFG cases with the aim of further reducing the processing time for the stages that are within its direct control.

  Hare Population
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in
  333W
  introducing the proposed temporary ban on the killing or taking of Irish hares; and if he will make a statement. [144386]

  Angela Smith
  Having carefully considered all the objections to the proposed ban, I have decided to proceed with making a Special Protection Order, under the Game Preservation Act (NI) 1928, which will impose a ban on the killing, taking, sale or purchase of Irish Hares with effect from 19 January 2004 for a period of one year.
  This temporary ban is a precautionary measure which will allow the Department of the Environment the opportunity to conduct further detailed research on the Irish Hare in early 2004. The results of this research work will inform the Department's conclusions on the level of protection required for the Irish Hare, as part of a current overall review of the Wildlife (NI) Order 1985. This review will consider the status of several species of animals, birds and plants, with a view to providing adequate protection for a wide range of Northern Ireland's varied wildlife.

  Housing
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many public sector dwellings are in the ownership of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive in the Portstewart area; and what plans are in place to provide for social housing in this area. [145101]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Northern Ireland Housing Executive has 209 properties in the Portstewart area and has identified a requirement for an additional 22 houses that will be built by Housing Associations. Some sites for these properties have already been acquired and four houses have been built while eight are programmed to start in 2004–05. Housing Associations, in conjunction with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, are actively investigating possible locations for other sites for the remaining 10 properties.

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the potential demand for new homes in Northern Ireland in the next five years; whether he expects this demand to be met; and if he will make a statement. [144347]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Regional Development Strategy for Northern Ireland 2025 established a need for 160,000 additional dwellings in Northern Ireland by 2015 and 250,000 by 2025.
  Progress is monitored and reported annually. The Strategy will be reviewed in 2011/2012 to consider if major changes of direction are required in light of new trends and circumstances. There will be a focused reassessment of the Regional Development Strategy in 2006/2006 to identify any aspects where 'in course' adjustments might be appropriate.
  In terms of social housing, the Net Stock Model—the basis for calculating the number of social houses to be built has identified a need for some 1,500 annually. The model is, however, currently under review and the figures will be adjusted in the light of this. I will continue to bid for the funding to support whatever level of new build social housing is required.

  Midwife-led Maternity Units
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what means he used to find out what people think of the Government's proposals for establishing stand-alone, midwife-led maternity units. [144777]

  Angela Smith
  In line with my predecessor's commitment, 1 issued a consultation document on Community Midwifery Units on 30 June 2003.
  As part of the consultation process, advertisements were placed in the main regional newspapers. The consultation document was made available on my Department's website and was also issued to a wide range of organisations and individuals. In addition, my Department commissioned the Community Development and Health Network to undertake a series of focus groups across Northern Ireland. These focus groups were specifically targeted to obtain responses from both potential service users and those groups least likely to respond to government consultations.
  The consultation period closed on 31 October. Officials are now in the process of drawing together an analysis of the responses received.

  Modern Apprenticeship Courses
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people enrolled on a modern apprenticeship course in September 2003. [145308]

  Jane Kennedy
  869 young people were enrolled on a Jobskills Modern Apprenticeship programme during September 2003.

  Northern Ireland Housing Executive
  Mr. McCrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the Northern Ireland Housing Executive plans for reducing the time taken to process grant applications for home improvements. [145105]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Northern Ireland Housing Executive has initiated the Modernising the Private Sector Improvement Services project. The main aim of this project is to streamline the grants process and make it easier for applicants. Preliminary work has been undertaken on the project including a review of processes and the preparation of detailed requirements for a new Grants Management IT System. Work on the IT system is planned to start early in 2004 and it is anticipated that it will be complete in two years. However, it is expected that, during this process, procedures will be identified that can be streamlined within the overall timeframe for the project.
  Applications for small scale works made under Home Repairs Assistance Grant, which was introduced from 1 December 2003, can be processed in a comparatively short time to help the elderly and those with disabilities.

  Election Candidates
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his policy is on whether a member of the(a) Human Rights Commission and (b) Equality Commission may accept a nomination to contest an

  335W
  election for (i) a district council, (ii) the Northern Ireland Assembly and (iii) the Westminster Parliament; and what account he took of the Paris Principles in determining that policy. [145212]

  Mr. Spellar
  Members of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission cannot accept a nomination to contest an election for the Northern Ireland Assembly or the Westminster Parliament under the terms of the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 and the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975.

  Post Office
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with the major banking groups in Northern Ireland regarding access to bank accounts at post offices. [145310]

  Mr. Timms
  I have been asked to reply.
  All the major banking groups in Northern Ireland are playing a full role in universal banking services at the Post Office, making their own basic bank accounts accessible at post offices and contributing towards the costs of the Post Office card account. Whether they provide access to other accounts at post offices is a commercial matter between the individual banks and the Post Office. I would welcome all banks making all their current accounts accessible at post offices for the benefit of their customers.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have opened a Post Office Card Account. [145311]

  Mr. Timms
  I have been asked to reply.
  I understand from Post Office Ltd. as of 5 December 2003, 1,165,147 Post Office card accounts had been opened.

  Public Transport
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many vehicles in the(a) Ulsterbus fleet and (b) Citybus fleet are (i) in operation and (ii) undergoing repair and maintenance. [144224]

  Spellar
  Translink has advised that routinely 1025 buses in the Ulsterbus fleet are operational and 114 are undergoing repair and maintenance and 226 buses in the Citybus fleet are operational and 40 are undergoing repair and maintenance.

  Roads
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to amend the criteria used to determine the need for road dualling on major trunk roads; and if he will make a statement. [144240]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Chief Executive of Roads Service has written to the hon. Gentleman in response to this question. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.

  Sexual Health Services
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he will take to increase funding for sexual health services in Northern Ireland. [145428]
  336W
  Angela Smith
  The Department, through its Regional Advisory Committee on Communicable Disease Control, commissioned a local review of sexual health issues. The resulting comprehensive report on "Sexually Transmitted Infections and Genito-urinary Medicine Services" was issued to Health and Social Services Boards and Trusts for implementation on 14 April 2003.
  This was followed by the Department's "Sexual Health Promotion Strategy and Action Plan", which has been issued for a period of consultation finishing on 19 March 2004. The aim of the Strategy is to improve, protect and promote the sexual health and well-being of the population in Northern Ireland, along with addressing issues relating to education, access to information and services. It also addresses issues such as reducing rates of sexually transmitted infections and Aids.
  In the meantime, my Department, in conjunction with Boards and Trusts, is identifying opportunities to improve Genito-urinary Medicine services, along with the necessary resources to sustain service development.

  University Students
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of students attending university in each of the last five years came from families where(a) one or more of the parents also attended university and (b) neither parent attended university. [145305]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Department for Employment and Learning (DEL) does not collect information on the past educational participation of current students' parents.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many students who enrolled at university in Northern Ireland failed to complete their course in each of the last five years. [145309]

  Jane Kennedy
  The following table (published by the Higher Education Funding Council for England) details the number of full-time, first degree, entrants to university in Northern Ireland who neither continued into the following year of their course nor successfully completed their programme of study, over the period 1996–97 to 2000–01.

  Year of entry

  Number of non-completers

  2000–01

  694

  1999–2000

  625

  1998–99

  931

  1997–98

  566

  1996–97

  513

  WORK AND PENSIONS

    Draft Disability Discrimination Bill
    Lynne Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for what reasons it is proposed to extend the definition of disability in the Draft Disability Discrimination Bill to include people infected by HIV. [145729]
    337W
    Maria Eagle
    People with progressive conditions, such as HIV infection, are already covered by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 from the point at which the condition gives rise to an impairment which has some effect on their ability to carry out day-to-day activities, and which will be likely to have a substantial adverse effect. The Government are proposing to cover people with HIV infection before symptoms develop because it is concerned that discrimination can arise at a much earlier stage.

  Assaults on Staff
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) physical and (b) nonphysical assaults there have been on staff in the (i) Employment Service, (ii) Benefits Agency and

  Physical and Non-Physical Assaults 2001–2003

  2001

  2002

  20033

  Physical contact

  Verbal abuse

  Physical contact

  Verbal abuse

  Physical contact

  Verbal abuse

  ES Offices

  222

  3,637

  44

  1,026

  —

  —

  BA Offices

  135

  4,910

  34

  1,128

  —

  —

  Pathfinder Offices1

  1

  108

  2

  171

  —

  —

  Jobcentre Plus 2

  —

  —

  207

  4,299

  188

  5,648

  1 Pathfinder Offices commenced on 1 October 2001.

  2 Jobcentre Plus was launched April 2002. All sites were Jobcentre Plus sites from that date.

  3 Data reported for 2003 is up to and including 28 November.

  Source:

  Occupational Health and Safety Division

  Physical contact is when a customer directly touches a member of staff with or without an object. It includes striking, pushing, spitting and throwing of objects—large or small. Non-physical contact mainly involves verbal abuse but can include throwing of objects that miss or hit screens.

  Historically there has been under-reporting of incidents. Increased awareness of Health and Safety and encouragement by management and trade unions to report incidents have contributed to the increased number of incidents being notified.

  Information on prosecutions and penalties since Jobcentre Plus came into existence is shown in the table below. We do not have information available for 2001. Data on penalties indicates the number of banning orders imposed on customers who have a history of behaving in an unacceptable manner. Banning orders prevent these customers from entering any Jobcentre Plus premises.

  Prosecutions

  Penalties

  2002

  1

  430

  2003

  1

  600

  Source:

  Occupational Health and Safety Division

  I hope this is helpful.

  Fareham Jobcentre
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many staff are located at the former jobcentre premises at 187–199 West Street, Fareham; [143697]
  (2) what the (a) annual rental and (b) unexpired lease period is of the former jobcentre premises at 187–199 West Street, Fareham; [143698]
  338W
  (iii) Jobcentre Plus in each year since 2001; how many prosecutions resulted; what penalties were handed down; and if he will make a statement. [141504]

  Mr. Browne
  The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus, David Anderson. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from David Anderson to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 15 December 2003:
  As Jobcentre Plus is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply direct to your question on the number of physical and non-physical assaults there have been on staff in the Employment Service, Benefits Agency and Jobcentre Plus in each year since 2001 and how many prosecutions and penalties resulted. This is something that falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  Information on the number of incidents occurring in our offices since 2001 is in the table.

  (3) if he will make a statement on the future use by the Department of the former jobcentre premises at 187–199 West Street, Fareham. [143699]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 11 December 2003]: The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus, David Anderson. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from David Anderson to Mr. Mark Hoban, dated 15 December 2003:
  As Jobcentre Plus is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply direct to your questions about the use by Jobcentre Plus of the former Jobcentre premises at 187–199 West Street, Fareham. This is something that falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  Jobcentre Plus has been established to deliver a radical change in the way that benefits and employment services are provided to people of working age. By 2006, we plan to introduce a network of around 1000 fully integrated Jobcentre Plus offices.
  The Jobcentre Plus Implementation Programme for Hampshire commenced in June 2002. Following a period of consultation, the former Social Security Office at Civic Way, Fareham, was identified as being suitable for use as a new Jobcentre Plus site. Following adaptations to the premises, the new office opened on 22 April 2003.
  It was clear throughout this process that the site, though suitable for the delivery of the new Jobcentre Plus services, would not be big enough to house all of the staff currently working in Fareham. Therefore, the premises at 187–199 West Street, formerly the Jobcentre. was retained as an "overspill" site. Further acquisitions, together with other new Jobcentre Plus sites that open during the coming months, may influence space requirements across Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. This in turn, may impact upon the need to retain the use of this particular building.

  339W
  Currently, the office accommodates a total of 35 staff, transferred following the opening of our new Jobcentre Plus site. Of this total, eleven are engaged in the processing of Jobseeker's Allowance claims; twelve are staff from the Pensions Service and twelve from the Counter Fraud Investigation Service. The present complement of Counter Fraud Investigation Service staff will be joined by a further fourteen members of staff from our Employer Collusion Team with effect from 14 January 2004.
  The premises at West Street, with effect from 15 December 2003, will be controlled by TRILLIUM, under the Private Sector Resource Initiative for the Management of Estate. For this reason, information about annual rental and lease agreement is classed as commercial in confidence and so cannot be provided.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Jobseekers
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to the pre-Budget report, paragraph 4.10, if he will list those organisations that will delivery mandatory short intensive work-focused courses for all jobseeker's allowance claimants aged 25 or over at the six month stage; and if he will list the pilot areas. [145113]

  Mr. Browne
  The mandatory short intensive work-focused courses for jobseeker's allowance claimants aged 25 and over will be piloted from June 2005. Following detailed planning and development, we will seek skilled providers through normal Jobcentre Plus procurement processes. Pilot areas are yet to be selected.

  New Deal
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) pursuant to the pre-Budget report, paragraph 4.62, what independent assessment has been undertaken to learn from the best current New Deal provision; [145114]
  (2) pursuant to the pre-Budget report, paragraph 4.63, what independent assessment has been undertaken to consider the scope for simplifying current processes to make systems easier for (a) employers, (b) clients, (c) advisers and (d) providers. [145115]

  Mr. Browne
  We have commissioned a large amount of independent research on the New Deals including: "Synthesising the evidence on flexible delivery" (W171: ECOTEC and Insite, October 2003); "New Deal for Young People: Introducing a more 'tailored' approach" (W164: ECOTEC and Insite, September 2003); and "New Deal for people aged 25 and over: A Synthesis Report" (W163: Policy Studies Institute, June 2003), which are available in the Library. Independent research has not been undertaken to look specifically at simplifying current processes.
  We will be looking critically at our administration of employment programmes to identify whether there is scope for simplification.

  Pensions
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will take steps to amend the 25 per cent. rule to enable those with less than 10 years' full contributions to receive a pension. [145469]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We have no plans to change the 25 per cent. rule.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the annual cost of sending out reminder letters to pensioners informing them that they are entitled to receive winter fuel payments was in each year since inception of the payments; and if he will make a statement. [145376]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information is not available in the format requested. In accordance with the requirements of Resource Accounting and Budgeting the Department now accounts for its administration and benefit expenditure by Strategic Objective, as set out in its Public Service Agreements (PSA), and by individual requests for Resources (RfRs) as set out in the Departmental Estimates and Accounts. This means that the Department is unable to identify the administrative costs of individual activities within the delivery of specific benefits.

  CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

    House of Lords
    Lady Hermon
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what assessment he has made of the number of peers who would be interested in relinquishing their right to sit in the House of Lords. [145068]

    Mr. Leslie
    The Government have not made any formal assessment of the number of peers who would be interested in relinquishing their current right to sit in the Lords, but have sought views on the desirability of introducing provisions to allow for voluntary resignation from the Lords in their Consultation paper, "Constitutional Reform; Next Steps for the House of Lords". The Government are currently analysing all the responses submitted during the consultation exercise, including a number of responses from peers, and will publish their analysis of the consultation responses, along with their plans for reform of the House of Lords in due course.

    Lady Hermon
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many members he expects the statutory independent Appointments Commission for the House of Lords will have; how many members of the Commission will be appointed; and if he will make a statement. [145069]

    Mr. Leslie
    The recent consultation paper, "Next Steps for the House of Lords", consulted on the proposed statutory independent Appointments Commission for the House of Lords. The consultation period ended on 12 December 2003, and the Government are in the process of analysing responses to the consultation. The Government will publish an analysis of the consultation in due course, and intend to introduce legislation this session to establish the new Commission.

    Lady Hermon
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many responses he received to the "Constitutional Reform: Next Steps for the House of Lords" consultation document; how many of these responses came from(a) Government Departments and agencies, (b) political parties and hon. Members, (c) peers currently serving in the House of

    341W
    Lords, (d) peers removed under the House of Lords Act 1999, (e) main representative groups and interested parties and (f) ecclesiastical representatives and organisations in (i) England, (ii) Scotland, (iii) Wales and (iv) Northern Ireland; and when the Government intend to issue their response to the responses received. [145071]

    Mr. Leslie
    The consultation period for the consultation paper, "Constitutional Reform: Next Steps for the House of Lords", closed on 12 December 2003. By 18 December, 204 responses had been received from a range of interested parties and responses are still being received. The Government are still considering those responses, including a precise analysis of who responded, and will publish that information and their conclusions in due course.

  Draft Mental Incapacity Bill
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will make a statement on the implications for an individual of having a parent, sibling or peer designated with enduring power of attorney, with particular reference to the Draft Mental Incapacity Bill. [145204]

  Mr. Lammy
  Under the Draft Mental Incapacity Bill, an individual will be able to create a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA). LPAs will replace the current Enduring Power of Attorneys and will allow donors to appoint attorneys to make either financial decisions or health care and welfare decisions on their behalf, should they lose capacity in the future.
  In making an LPA, individuals will have choice on who they appoint as an attorney—there is no limitation a parent, sibling or peer. The important factor is that the individual chooses someone that they know and trust.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what plans his Department has to support the work of professionals who are required to give evidence to the Court of Protection under the provisions of the Draft Mental Incapacity Bill. [145205]

  Mr. Lammy
  Under the Draft Mental Incapacity Bill, the Court of Protection will be available to deal with cases of dispute which cannot be resolved in any other way. The intention is that most cases, as now, will not need to be resolved by formal processes. The procedures will make it simple for professionals and others to make representations to the court.

  DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

    Regional Assemblies
    Andrew George
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the range of(a) non-departmental public bodies and (b) other autonomous public bodies operating in the Government regions of the (i) north-east, (ii) north-west and (iii) Yorkshire and the Humber where functions could be brought under the control of the proposed regional assemblies. [145915]
    342W
    Mr. Raynsford
    Public bodies in the north-east including those that would be brought under elected assemblies were set out in the White Paper, "Your Region, Your Choice: Revitalising the English Regions", published in May 2002. Similar arrangements apply in the north-west and Yorkshire and the Humber. Since then the Government have confirmed that Elected Regional Assemblies will also assume responsibility for the Fire and Rescue Service in their region.

    Mr. Curry
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what the cost was of literature printed for the information campaign, "Elected Regional Assembly: Your Say"; [145989]
    (2) what the cost was of each item of promotional material for the information campaign, "Elected Regional Assembly: Your Say". [146046]

    Mr. Raynsford
    Material produced for the design of the Your Say information campaign, such as exhibition stands and leaflets will continue to be used throughout the information campaign in the three northern regions.
    The available cost breakdown for literature and other promotional material so far are:

    £

    Creative costs

    40,000

    Leaflet design, including photography, artwork and printing

    31,500

    Translations

    10,000

    Exhibition stands

    49,000

    Stakeholder and press packs for the launch

    4,000

  Fire Authority Grant
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister by how much in total fire authorities have exceeded their grant increase over each of the past five years. [143971]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The amount by which the increase in fire authority precepts has exceeded the increase in grant for the years 1998–99 to 2003–04 is tabled as follows.

  Period

  Amount by which increase in precepts exceeds grants to the nearest whole £ million

  1998–99 to 1999–2000

  0

  1999–2000 to 2000–01

  0

  2000–01 to 2001–02

  -3

  2001–02 to 2002–03

  -1

  2002–03 to 2003–04

  8

  This table covers the six Metropolitan County Fire authorities. These were the only single-service fire authorities which received grants and which were in existence throughout the period from 1998–99 to 2003–04. In each year, grants have been compared with previous years' grants on a like-for-like basis, taking into account adjustments for changes in function and funding.
  The data for the years 1998–99 to 2002–03 is outturn data taken from the RS forms. The data for 2003–04 is budget data taken from the RA forms as outturn data is not yet available. These forms are completed each year by individual local authorities.

  343W
  The grants included are redistributed business rates and Revenue Support Grant. Amounts received under the SSA Reduction Grant (SSA Review) and Central Support Protection Grant have also been included, where appropriate.

  Fire Service College
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister in relation to the Fire Service College, Moreton-in-Marsh, what the total Government grant was in the last financial year; for what purposes it was given; for what reason the college made a loss in the last financial year; and why the annual accounts for the year ended March 2003 state that the college is unlikely to do better than break-even in the year to 31 March 2004. [145789]

  Phil Hope
  Grant totalling £625,000 was paid to the Fire Service College in 2002–03, for the Brigade Command Course. The College's ability to trade in both the latter part of 2002–03 and the first quarter of 2003–04 was adversely affected by the fire dispute, which resulted in the cancellation of courses. Overseas trading by the College was also constrained by the international situation. The introduction of the Integrated Personal Development System (IPDS) in the UK Fire and Rescue Service from November 2003 is requiring the development of a new suite of IPDS-compliant training courses by the College to replace traditional courses. This has caused some disruption in business as fire and rescue services adapted to the new requirements and delayed the take-up of some College training capacity this year.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps are being taken to integrate the Fire Service College, Moreton-in-Marsh, training facilities with regional fire service training facilities; what steps are being taken to encourage foreign fire service training business to the college; what investigations are being undertaken into the feasibility of privatising or other alternative trading methods for the college; and what other trading opportunities the college is investigating. [145790]

  Phil Hope
  The White Paper "Our Fire and Rescue Service" published in June 2003 sets out a vision for the Fire Service College as a national Centre of Excellence for the UK Fire and Rescue Service (UKFRS), and further details on the College's role are provided in the Draft Fire and Rescue National Framework published in December 2003. The Framework trails a national workforce development strategy that will set out the respective roles for training providers at national, regional and local level. There are no specific proposals to integrate the College's facilities with regional fire service training facilities.
  The College is working to develop other markets both in the UK fire industry and with overseas fire and rescue services. It is developing an enhanced training portfolio, with increased emphasis on outreach training, and distance and e-learning capabilities. Options for involving private sector partners in aspects of the College's trading are being actively explored.

  Homelessness
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how many people were homeless in(a) London and (b) England in each year since 1997; [143993]
  (2) how many families have claimed to be homeless in (a) London and (b) England in each year since 1997. [143994]

  Yvette Cooper
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 5 January 2004,Official Report, column 142W.

  Housing
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the housing industry on the relationship between mortgage ineligibility of young people and access to affordable housing. [144095]

  Keith Hill
  None, but wider issues about affordable housing are discussed with the housing industry on many occasions.

  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what impact the Inland Revenue's ruling of 24 October will have on the standard of housing in Peterborough; [145740]
  (2) what impact the delay in the transfer of homes to Crosskeys Homes will have on the local authority's short-to-medium term housing policy. [145741]

  Keith Hill
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 15 December 2003,Official Report, columns 745–46W.

  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many new or additional homes he expects to be provided in(a) the South East and (b) the South West by the end of 2006; and how many of these homes he expects to be available at affordable prices for households on average income. [145752]

  Keith Hill
  Regional Planning Guidance 9 for the South East and 10 for the South West each require, over the six year period to the end of 2006 for approximately 234,000 and 121,000 additional dwellings to be provided in the wider South East (including Bedfordshire, Essex and Hertfordshire) and the South West respectively. Of these the indicative targets in the two RPGs indicate that at least 108,000 and 36,000 additional dwellings should be provided over this period at affordable prices for households on or below average income.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the minimum building distance from a nuclear power station is, for industrial structures which are not part of the plant. [145742]

  Keith Hill
  There is no specified minimum distance that has to be maintained between a nuclear power station and another industrial structure that is not a part of the power station plant. The decision on whether any proposed development should be permitted to take place within the vicinity of a nuclear power station is a matter for the local planning authority, taking advice from the Health and Safety Executive on the suitability of the development with regard to the potential off-site risk.

  Planning Inspectorate
  Denzil Davies
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many persons applied for the recently advertised post of non-executive director to serve on the Management Board and Audit Committee of the Planning Inspectorate. [145464]

  Yvette Cooper
  21 people applied for the posts, of whom 12 were male and nine female. Seven candidates were selected for interview, three male and four female. Elizabeth Peace and Jonathan Vickers were selected to take up the appointments from 1 January 2004. Both appointments will run for two years with an option to extend for another two.
  346W

  Regional Housing Boards
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the priorities of each of the regional housing boards in England. [145967]

  Keith Hill
  The Regional Housing Boards were asked to identify each region's priorities in line with their Regional Housing Strategies. These were drawn up by those organizations represented on the Board, in full consultation with key regional stakeholders. The priorities reflect not only regionally identified issues, but also national policies. The office of the Deputy Prime Minister has allocated nearly £5 billion for next year and the year after to address the priorities set out in the Regional Housing Strategies.

DEFENCE

  Ground Based Air Defence
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  The Defence Procurement Agency has agreed contracts with European Aeronautic Defence Systems and Lockheed Martin for a three-year competitive assessment phase for the Ground Based Air Defence phase 1 programme.

  The contracts will pave the way for low-risk incremental introduction of enhanced command and control capability to our GBAD forces as well as providing them with world-class situational awareness in the joint battlespace management environment. This capability will provide interoperability within the joint UK forces and with all of our principal allies. The combined value of the contracts is around £85 million and the work will be conducted in the UK, headed from offices in Havant and Bristol, with a significant proportion being sub-contracted to MBDA missile systems at Stevenage and Thales Air Defence Ltd in Belfast. The GBAD investment will not only start a process of considerable networked enabled capability enhancement, but will support a wide variety of highly skilled jobs within the UK.

  ECHR Judgments—Courts Martial
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  On 16 December 2003 the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in the cases of Cooper and Grieves. The two cases concerned whether trial by court martial in the United Kingdom—under the system in place since the coming into force of the 1996 Armed Forces Act—was compatible with article 6.1 of the Convention.

  This statement sets out the main findings of the Court and future conduct of courts martial.

  Mr. Cooper was a serving member of the Royal Air Force (RAF). On 18 February 1998 he was convicted of theft by an Air Force district court martial (DCM). He was sentenced to 56 days' imprisonment, to be reduced to the ranks and dismissed from the service. The DCM comprised a permanent president, two other officers lower in rank and a civilian judge advocate.

  On 3 April 1998 the Reviewing Authority, having received advice from the Advocate General, upheld the DCM's finding and sentence. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully to the Appeal Court (CMAC).

  The applicant took the case to the European Court, basing his case mainly on a decision of the European Court in Morris v. UK (2002) that courts martial were non-compliant in certain respects relating to their composition and the practice of post-trial review (under
  6WS
  which a conviction may be quashed or sentence reduced by a service reviewing authority). In Cooper v. the United Kingdom, the Court unanimously overturned its decision in Morris and held that there had been no violation of article 6.1 (right to a fair hearing and to an independent and impartial tribunal) of the European convention on human rights.

  Mr. Grieves was a member of the Royal Navy. On 18 June 1998 he was convicted by a Royal Navy court martial of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm. He was sentenced to three years' imprisonment, reduced in rank, dismissed from the service and ordered to pay £700 in compensation. The court martial comprised a president (a Royal Navy captain), four naval officers and a judge advocate, who was a serving naval officer and barrister.

  On 29 September 1998 the Admiralty Board, having received advice from the Judge Advocate of the Fleet (JAF), upheld the court martial's finding and sentence. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully to the CMAC.

  Mr. Grieves took his case to the European Court. Part of his case was based on Morris. In addition he argued that the use of a serving naval officer as the judge advocate was non-compliant (in Army and RAF courts martial the judge advocates are civilians). In Grieves v. the United Kingdom the Court, as in Cooper, rejected the arguments based on Morris, but concluded that the use of serving naval officers as judge advocates in the Royal Navy did not provide a strong guarantee of the independence of naval courts martial. It thus held unanimously that there had been a violation of article 6§ 1. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court did not award the applicant any damages, but awarded him 8,000 euros for costs and expenses, less the amount received in legal aid.

  The system of discipline within the armed forces is a vital contribution to their operational effectiveness and their success, to which this House has so often paid tribute. It is clearly welcome that the European Court has ruled that, as a whole, the service court martial system with its safeguards to guarantee its independence and impartiality is compliant with the ECHR. It is disappointing that the Court concluded on the more limited point in the case of Mr. Grieves that there was a violation under article 6. As explained already this does not affect Army or RAF courts martial where the judge advocates are civilians.

  We are reviewing the implications of the details of judgment as a matter of urgency. On the issue of the appointment of uniformed judge advocates we have already concluded that their use should cease with immediate effect. Following legal advice, we have concluded that the judgment also requires the amendment of existing legislation to change the arrangements for the appointment of judge advocates in naval proceedings, as these appointments are made by a serving naval officer. We will shortly be putting a remedial order before both Houses for this purpose under section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998. We aim to cause the minimum disruption to courts martial already scheduled in the new year, though some delay may be inevitable.

TREASURY

  Citizen Information Project
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng)
  The Registrar General for England and Wales will announce later today that he is leading the next stage of development work for a UK population register, which will inform a further decision by Ministers in 2005 on whether this work should proceed to implementation.

  A population register would become, for the public sector, the prime source of address and other core contact information relating to people usually resident in the UK. The development would pave the way for more responsive and personalised public services, by supporting joined-up delivery and more efficient and effective transaction and back office services.

  A critical consideration in developing plans for a population register will be the protection of individual privacy. To that end, if a population register were
  8WS
  implemented, individuals would be able to see the contact details held on them and to know which parts of government were accessing this information.

  The work will build on a feasibility study that reported to Ministers in June. The Registrar General will place an information note summarising the feasibility study on the Office for National Statistics and General Register Office website. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  The project team will continue to work closely with other Government Departments, the devolved Administrations, agencies and local authorities.

HEALTH

  HFEA Code of Practice
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson)
  The new edition of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's code of practice for infertility clinics has been approved and laid before Parliament today. Copies have been placed in the Library.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read hr the Lord Bishop of Truro.

Sudden Oak Death Virus
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their strategy to prevent the import of species which are known to carry sudden oak death fungus.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, plants imported from third countries must have a health certificate. Hosts of the fungus, Phytophthora ramorum, must come from disease-free areas or from nurseries that are regularly inspected and found clear. Within the EU, checks at nurseries allow issue of passports for rhododendrons and viburnums, which are the plants most often infected. Our monitoring inspections are now being stepped up, and we continue to destroy plants that are infected or do not have the right documentation.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for that reply. I understand what he is telling us about destroying plants that already have the disease or fungus. However, does he agree that, if the fungus gets hold and proves as devastating as Dutch elm disease, this Government will never be forgiven? Will the Minister please take action and ban imports immediately, as other European countries did when we were exporting our beef? Not all the research into BSE had been undertaken, but a ban was introduced.
We must stop the disease getting into the country. Will the Minister introduce a ban immediately so that we can save our beeches, horse chestnuts, holm oaks, red oaks, yews. rhododendrons and azaleas?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there are already very substantial controls on imports, both within the EU and from elsewhere. It is a fact that there have been a number of outbreaks within the UK of roughly the same order as in a number of individual European countries. A total ban on EU imports would therefore appear disproportionate, so long as the EU rules are being obeyed by other EU countries. The noble Baroness is right that the rhododendron is the most
74
difficult of all the plants affected, but the outbreak is spreading internally rather than through imports at this point.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, what signs are there for the disease? Having just bought some rhododendrons, should I have checked that they have passports?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, not if they are of British stock. The nursery, rather than the consumer, is required to check the plants and make that kind of inspection. There have been more than 300 cases, most of them in nurseries, and we have found in some nurseries that rhododendron and viburnum stock is infected. In a very few cases, the infection has spread to the mature trees to which the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, referred.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: But, my Lords, what are the signs?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, at this time of year the fungus is relatively small and difficult to detect. It becomes larger and darker later in the year.
Lord Clark of Windermere: My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Forestry Commission. While the import controls are vitally important, they are not the only answer. Will the Minister confirm that approximately 70 per cent of the findings of Phytophthora ramorum have been on plants of UK origin? Will he further confirm that the Forestry Commission and Defra share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, that we must do everything in our power to arrest the spread of the disease? We are currently embarking on a further phase of surveying 1,000 sites, which will be completed by the end of March, in less than three months. That will give us a better indication of how widespread the disease is in British forests and shrubs.
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords, my noble friend is correct in saying that more than 70 per cent is in stock of British origin. Therefore, at this point the main issue is the internal spread. I should like to record my gratitude to the Forestry Commission in diverting substantial numbers of its own staff to the inspections, which will detect whether the disease is significant within our woodlands. A number of areas may be exposed, of which the most important so far has been the nurseries. If it spreads into woodlands more generally, we would have a real problem on our hands.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, the work that the Forestry Commission is doing is very welcome. However, does the Minister understand that there is a real fear among people who have heard about the disease or discovered and experienced it that this could be another epidemic such as Dutch elm disease? Does he understand that

75
there is some concern that there seems to be a blanket of secrecy about where the 300 outbreaks in nurseries and garden centres and the 30 or 40 outbreaks that have been found in the wild, as it were—in gardens and other established sites—have occurred? Would it not be much better if there was a policy of openness and frankness from the very beginning, so that people know where the disease is and those who have land and trees can watch out for it?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there are arguments for having a completely transparent situation, but it could be a disproportionate reaction in relation to nurseries in which there has been an individual case, and their consumers might react disproportionately to that. Normally, when an outbreak is found, the neighbouring landowners will be involved in the efforts of Defra to restrict the disease and engage in the destruction of plants that show symptoms of the disease.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that his plant health inspectors will ensure that proper quarantine arrangements are in place for the importation of rhododendrons, viburnums and camellias? We keep hearing about imports from Holland that grow so quickly; could it not be that they have overgrown their strength and lost the ability to resist disease?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the horticulture industry in the Netherlands is very successful, and occasionally allegations are made about it that may not be entirely accurate. There is no justification for suggesting that this disease originated in the Netherlands. Clearly, it hit Europe and North America some time during the 1990s, but it is unlikely that it was caused by imports from the Netherlands. We keep in very close contact with colleague plant inspectors in the Netherlands, who are particularly robust in ensuring that the appropriate controls and documentation are provided.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has already touched on the question I was going to ask. Will the noble Lord say, without naming particular nurseries, in what sort of geographical locations the disease has been found? Is it starting at one end of the country and spreading windward, or is it very widespread over the country?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the vast majority of cases have been in the south of England, and there may be climatic reasons for that. There have also been occasional outbreaks in the north of England and in Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Channel Islands. The biggest single concentration is in the far south-west.

Climate Change Levy: Nuclear Power
2.44 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, to assist in meeting their Kyoto undertakings, they will relieve nuclear power stations from payment of the climate change levy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): No, my Lords; the Government have no plans to relieve nuclear power stations from the levy. While nuclear power does not generate CO2 emissions, it does have other significant environmental impacts, and it is right that those are acknowledged.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I feel almost crushed by disappointment at the foolishness of that Answer. The Government have declared themselves in favour of reducing carbon emissions. One field of generation that is absolutely innocent of producing such emissions is the nuclear field. Will the noble Lord do himself a good turn, and ask his colleagues to do themselves a good turn, and reread the report Towards a Non-Carbon Fuel Economy published in April by the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology, which was chaired by one of their own Members? It is a very intelligent report. It says that renewables are much too slow in coming on stream and that there will be a gap which must be filled by nuclear power. The Government will look very shameful; they ought to be thoroughly ashamed now of their failure to take this matter seriously.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am really worried by the degree of emotion which the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, gives to his responses to my answers. His Question and my Answer were about the climate change levy. Of course there are wider issues raised in the Select Committee report, but, of itself, exempting nuclear power from the climate change levy would not actually help. What we have to do is to reduce energy use in total. We are dealing with that through many policies, including enhanced capital allowances and encouraging generation from new renewables. I agree with him that progress on that is in many respects too slow. However, it would not help to exempt nuclear power from the climate change levy.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, perhaps I may therefore ask my noble friend to pursue the logic of his own argument and say that, until we have actually reduced energy consumption and have the alternative energy sources on stream, the Government see a vital role for the continuation of the nuclear generation of electricity so that we have the energy resources to fuel our manufacturing industry and our domestic and other needs.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is why the energy White Paper and the Energy Bill—which is

77
soon to be debated in this House—deal with these matters. It is certainly true, as we have said on many occasions, that we have to keep options open for the continuation of nuclear energy beyond the life of the existing power stations. However, that is not affected by the climate change levy, which was the subject of this Question.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, bearing in mind the lower than planned contribution from renewables and the fact that power stations have resumed adding to emissions, which is a serious situation, what further measures do the Government contemplate to achieve their Kyoto objectives, in addition to those already mentioned by the noble Lord?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is very much wider than the Question on the climate change levy. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will be encouraged by my statement that, for the first time, in 2002 carbon emissions actually declined by 3.5 per cent, and in the climate change levy sectors there was a reduction of 13.5 million tonnes of carbon emission, which was three times the target planned. However, if he wants to ask questions on the wider issues of renewables and progress towards renewables, I am sure my colleagues from the Department of Trade and Industry will be happy to answer them.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, can the Minister help us? Since nuclear power stations do not produce greenhouse gases, and since the Government keep repeating—as indeed the Minister stated today— that they are keeping the nuclear option open, can he tell us what consultations or deliberations on this matter the Government are currently engaged in, with whom, and how soon a decision may be made?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are in constant negotiations, as we have to be, with British Energy because it is struggling very hard to keep out of administration. Therefore, the future of the nuclear power industry in this country is of constant concern to a number of government departments. But that does not mean to say that we are simply neglecting these issues. It is clear that that is not the case.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that right from the start it was somewhat anomalous that the climate change levy rebate did not embrace nuclear? The Question on the Order Paper tries to relate the climate change levy rebate to the purposes of Kyoto. Kyoto was essentially concerned with carbon dioxide. Therefore, the climate change levy rebate should embrace it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we ought to be clear what the climate change levy is. It is a levy only on the business use of energy. It is designed to be revenue neutral; in other words, employers are compensated through reductions in national insurance contributions. Through the discount system for heavy
78
energy users it is also neutral as between manufacturing and service industries. It is not meant to be the one magical cure for all of the problems in respect of carbon emissions.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that nuclear power can be regarded in practice as a renewable? When he talks about the environmental impact of nuclear power does he recognise that, for example, wind power has a huge environmental impact through its visual intrusion? Does he further recognise that to produce the equivalent output of one nuclear power station, say, Sizewell B, which produces 1,200 megawatts, you would need 600, 300-foot high wind turbines, which would cause huge environmental degradation to the landscape?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am well aware that there is a great deal of controversy about some forms of renewable energy and certainly that there is controversy about the use of on-land wind energy and the environmental impact of that. Those matters can be debated at the appropriate time, not during discussion on a Question about the climate change levy. However, the definition of renewables is not up to us to decide. It is sometimes nonsensical, as with methane, but there it is, that is what renewables are and we cannot change the English language.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, will the Minister expand on his comment about the Energy Bill that will be debated in this House? I got the impression from his answer to one of the questions that the nuclear option would be debated. That is news to me. Will the Government introduce an amendment to the Energy Bill before we see it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my supplementary answer referred back to my first Answer which concerned the environmental impacts of nuclear power. That, of course, is one of the issues in the Energy Bill.

Houses of Parliament: Common Meeting Area for Members
2.53 p.m.
Baroness Strange Baroness Strange asked the Chairman of Committees:
Whether there is any common area within the Palace of Westminster where Members of both Houses may meet socially on an equal basis.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, in most outlets where Members of both Houses can meet socially, Members of one House will be invited as guests of the other. There are a number of catering facilities to which Members of both Houses have access, including the Lords cafeteria and bar, the terrace

79
cafeteria in the House of Commons and cafeterias in Westminster Hall, Portcullis House, Millbank and Parliament Street.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Chairman of Committees for his fairly encouraging reply. Might he consider using the Pugin Room as an equal basis for both Houses to meet as it already has our carpet and is equidistant between the two Houses. It would be so lovely if both Houses of Parliament could meet on a daily, friendly basis just to chat together about what we were doing. While I am on my feet, may I also wish all your Lordships and all our friends in this House a very happy new year?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, your Lordships will, of course, be well aware that the Pugin Room was handed over to the House of Commons in 1906 in exchange for Committee Room 4. I believe that various attempts have been made over the years either to get it back or to have it used as a shared facility. All of those have currently been unsuccessful. The House of Commons clearly wishes to continue to have it for their use, whether or not it has a red carpet in it.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, would not this excellent idea of a common area provide those Members of this House who pay lip service to the primacy of the House of Commons with the opportunity to explain why on three separate occasions on the Criminal Justice Bill on Clauses 41 and 42 on jury trial they defeated the Government and ultimately destroyed the clauses despite the fact that the House of Commons on three separate occasions had approved those clauses with increasing majorities? Does not this development—which I shall mention repeatedly as it was an important development in the way the House of Lords operates—bring into dispute the relationship between the two Houses?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, it is not, of course, for me to answer on what happens to legislation in this House. However, there is no more evidence of the primacy of the House of Commons than in the comparison between the various facilities, particularly refreshment facilities, available in both Houses.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, can we come back to the Pugin Room? Is there not in fact an overwhelming case for Members of this place, not only Members of this place who were formerly Members of the House of Commons, to use a part of the building which is physically in our part of the building? It is an obvious place in which Members of both Houses should be able to use the facilities. The noble Lord said that efforts have been made in the past to regain it. Is it not time that we made another effort?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, of course, if that is your Lordships' wish I am very happy to try to reopen the argument, perhaps not to regain the Pugin Room but to use it as a shared facility. That might be
80
more successful than an attempt to regain it. I shall certainly see what I can do to achieve that, but I advise your Lordships not to hold their breath.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as the House of Commons now rises so early is it not rather a waste of space for it to have the Pugin Room for itself?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I wish that we could rise a little earlier sometimes too. However, I really cannot comment on the new working practices of the House of Commons and how they affect the revenues of the Refreshment Department, but it must perhaps give us some hope that there will be some movement at some stage. While I am on my feet, I recommend to your Lordships the new handbook on facilities and services for Members of this House, which is extremely good and details those facilities of the House of Commons that we are allowed to use and when we are allowed to use them.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, to return to the Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, would it not be a great improvement for this House and for the other place if there was somewhere where we could meet socially? I have been in this House 11 years now and I cannot think that I have ever had a social engagement with an MP that did not have to be arranged in advance, whereas I have had many opportunities to run into Members of this House whom I have never met before just by sitting down next to them at tea or dinner or having a drink in the Bishops' Bar. Would not one facility where we can get to know Members of the other House he a great improvement in the way in which this House and the other place operate vis-à-vis each other?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am certainly not disagreeing with the noble Lord. It would indeed be very nice if there was a room where we could meet on equal terms. Of course, those Members of your Lordships' House who have been in the other place have a great advantage over those of us who have not as I believe that they are allowed to enter most of the House of Commons facilities. That would indeed be very nice for us. However, in view of the imbalance between the facilities in both Houses, we would be looking to try to get into one of their rooms rather than the other way round.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, if the issue is one of shortage of accommodation, will the noble Lord consider looking at spaces that will be made available when the arrangements for the Lord Chancellor have been agreed by Parliament, thereby releasing quite an amount of space which could be used for the purposes that are the subject of this Question?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, it would be unwise of me to pre-empt the debate on the Lord Chancellor and the future of his accommodation in this building.

Barnett Formula: Scotland and Wales
3 p.m.
Lord Barnett Lord Barnett asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have for amending the Barnett formula in respect of public expenditure in Scotland and in Wales.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as I told my noble friend on 27 January 2003, the Government have no plans to change the Barnett formula. The Government's funding policies for the devolved administrations were set out in the updated statement of funding policy published by the Treasury on 15 July 2002.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am naturally sorry to hear that. Has my noble friend seen the latest official figures of public expenditure in Scotland, which show that the amount of public expenditure per head is about £1,000 more than that in England? Is he not surprised by that figure, as I am not, because it is bound to be unfair when it is not based on need? In those circumstances, is there not an even greater case to consider a major review, especially as we now have a non-Scottish Chief Secretary to the Treasury in Paul Boateng who might give it a fair wind? If that is not possible, will my noble friend consider asking the Chief Secretary to at least change the name of the formula?
Noble LordsOh!
Lord Barnett: My Lords, it is a great embarrassment to have my name attached to so unfair a system, especially as, when I introduced it, it was going to last only a year. It has now lasted more than 20 years, because successive governments have failed to deal with it for fear of upsetting the Scots. That no longer applies, so will my noble friend reconsider the matter?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury are both citizens of the United Kingdom. I would be very willing never to use the phrase "Barnett formula" again, but the noble Lord did so in his Question, and I have to respond in kind. I will undertake that, unless he or anyone else prompts me to do so, I will never use the words "Barnett formula" again from this Dispatch Box.
I shall deal with the more substantive question that the noble Lord asked. Of course, Scotland has a higher expenditure per head, but we should be wary of taking expenditure per head as the only measure. Scotland's population is falling, which results not only in falling increases under the Barnett formula but also in an increase in the baseline spending per head. It is not the only consideration that should be taken into account.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the magic in the formula is that difficulties in interpreting it have led to people on either side of the Scottish border reckoning that they were enjoying advantages over the other side? Does he agree that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, should be congratulated?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am disinclined to allow magic into the realms of economic policy, but the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has a point.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, does the Minister recall that, during the passage of the then Scotland Bill, it was generally agreed that it made sense to launch the Scottish Parliament on the basis of the existing financial formula, but that in the long run—after, say, a couple of parliaments—it would have to be looked at again? Indeed, the basic problem is not the formula itself, but the fact that we have an institution in Scotland responsible for massive public expenditure but with no responsibility for raising any revenue at all. It is that principle that should be looked at in due course, rather than merely the formula itself.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was not involved in the passage of the then Scotland Bill, but it is certainly true that it was generally agreed that the continuation of the Barnett formula—I have to keep calling it that in this debate—was the simplest and most just way to proceed. The longer-term issues of the sources of expenditure in Scotland can be considered at any time, but they are not the subject of the Question.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will the increasing cost of devolution, especially in Scotland, be shown separately in future?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the "cost of devolution", as the noble Lord calls it, is a matter for the Scottish Parliament. It produces its own accounts, which are publicly available.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, do the Government propose that any regional assemblies that may be established in England should be part-financed by the Barnett formula or, as we should perhaps call it, the "Methuselah formula"?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords. The basis of the funding of regional government will be that it will inherit the regional spending streams, but that those will of course be fulfilled within existing budgets.
Lord Newby: My Lords, with the referendums in the northern regions for regional assemblies later this year, it is quite clear that the whole question of the Barnett formula will become a live political issue. Is it not also clear that, within a very short time, there will quite likely be elected regional assemblies in England whose very existence is owed in part to the feeling in

83
the northern regions that the Barnett formula is inequitable? That is why regional assemblies are so necessary.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not responsible for the views of those who support elected regional assemblies. People will have their own differing views about why they should want to do so. As I have already said, it is not the Government's intention that funding of the English regions should be on the basis of the Barnett formula.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, in addition to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, does the Minister agree that a problem for the Scots Parliament is that it never knows how much money it will get, because it all depends on sudden decisions by the Chancellor of the Exchequer about what he gives to England, often in a ring-fenced manner? That affects what the Scots Parliament gets, and it does not know what is coming.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that that is true. My understanding is that the Scottish Parliament knows what resources it will have in future years, in the same way as does any department of state in this country.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, would it not be fair for the United Kingdom Parliament to pay for the Holyrood building, which is costing so much, as it ordered it to start with?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am delighted to say that that question is well outside the scope of the original Question.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, can we at the last gasp try one that is not? The formula is a needs-based formula, certainly in part, and the most recent needs assessment was 1977. Do I take it from the Minister's Answer that the Government have no intention to update it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the formula is population-based, not needs-based.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I have another question for my noble friend in view of one point that he made. We are talking about a complex financial area, as I naturally agree. However, because the matter is so serious, and because, as he said, the formula is population-based rather than based on needs, will he accept that it is unfair and worthy of review?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the great advantage of the formula, as I understand it, is that although the issues involved may be complex, the formula itself is relatively simple. That is why it has survived for 20 years or more.

Police Service: Arming of Officers
3.9 p.m.
Lord McNally Lord McNally asked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations they have received from representative bodies within the police service for the more general arming of police officers.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the answer is none. The Association of Chief Police Officers, the Police Superintendents' Association and the Police Federation do not support the routine arming of police officers.
Lord McNally: My Lords, is the Minister aware that that reply is not totally unexpected? Is she further aware that, like the other place and many other democratically elected chambers, this House, although often critical of police and policing, never fails to appreciate the courage of that thin blue line that protects us from anarchy and lawlessness? That should be understood by police officers everywhere. Does the Minister believe that the system of periodic amnesties for guns, which is relatively successful, could be better implemented through a rolling amnesty? Under such a system, anyone who had a gun illegally and improperly could hand it in and, if it had not been used previously for a crime, that would be the end of the matter. Would that be one way of taking guns off the streets? Is she confident that the training and protection offered to police officers on duty reflect the massive increase in gun crime over the past 10 years?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I endorse everything that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said about appreciating the bravery and courage of our police officers. It is matter of great comment and commendation that 78 per cent of police officers, when surveyed by the Police Federation, said that they did not wish to be armed routinely because they felt that it would impinge improperly on the good partnership that they have with the public.
I hear what the noble Lord says about periodic amnesties, but they have been fashioned to meet the needs of the occasion. Certainly, I shall consider those comments. Regarding training and protection, I am satisfied. Chief officers are responsible for identifying the number and training of the officers who undertake that work and it is well done.
Lord Condon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the routine arming of all police officers would inevitably dilute the quality of police firearms training, which is currently concentrated on a limited number of highly trained officers who have volunteered to carry firearms and regularly pass rigorous aptitude and competency tests? Does she also accept that international experience shows that the routine arming of all police officers leads to additional police deaths—including blue-on-blue

85
accidents, suicides by officers using their readily available firearms and officers' guns being used against them by criminals during struggles?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, those beliefs are strongly held by the police service and we have no reason to disagree. Furthermore, the noble Lord is right to say that the emphasis has been on quality, not just quantity, to make sure that those officers who are armed receive the necessary training and have the skill and the ability to use those guns safely and effectively.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, following the reply to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Condon, will the Minister assure the House that whatever the level of armed police officers, there will always be a core of armed police officers in all forces available on a 24-hour basis to protect their unarmed colleagues in the course of duty?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Viscount will know that those decisions are made by chief officers who have responsibility for identifying the needs of their areas and supplying officers to meet those needs. I have absolute confidence that chief officers are discharging their duties with skill, precision and care.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the partnership with the public that constrains the use of arms. Is not the inexorable reality that the more the police were to bear arms the more villains would do so and they would be much more ruthless in using them? There would be an escalation of violence if the current policy were changed.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can confirm to the noble Lord that that is the fear that has been expressed to us. However, I would like to reassure and remind noble Lords that at the moment the overall level of crime involving guns is low—less than 0.4 per cent of all recorded crimes involve guns. There is nothing to indicate that the policies that I have outlined should be departed from. We are content that our officers should not be routinely armed.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, because of the upsurge in drug crime and in that the carrying of guns, are there any modern devices that could help the police to detect those guns?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I know of no specific devices, but I can reassure the noble Baroness that technology is being developed across the board to assist us to take better care of those members of the public who could be subjected to gun crime. I shall write to her if I discover any new technology that might add to her knowledge.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, will the proposed sky marshals be members of the police force?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am not able to answer that question, but I shall write to the noble Lord.

Correctional Services Review
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am told that I can delight your Lordships further by now repeating a Statement made in the other place. The Statement is as follows:
"Mr Speaker, with permission, I wish to make a Statement on the next phase of our strategy to improve the effectiveness of the criminal justice system, and in particular correctional services.
"Our objective has to be to reduce crime by radically transforming the performance of the prison and probation services and those services working in partnership with them.
"Since 1997, we have undertaken a unique programme of reform and investment in both services. We have provided 14,700 more prison places, including seven new prisons, and we are providing £900 million more this year in real terms. There has been a 50 per cent increase in probation funding and a 30 per cent increase in front-line staff. Since 1996–97, there has been an increase of 4,300 additional staff in the Probation Service alone.
"We do not accept the counsel of despair that suggests offenders cannot be turned away from crime. The whole objective of correctional services must be to prevent re-offending, as well as providing punishment and protection.
"Today we are publishing our report, Reducing Crime, Changing Lives, which sets out a progressive agenda for the future and outlines the next steps to modernise and reform correctional services. I have placed a copy of this report in the Vote Office, together with the report from Patrick Carter. We are grateful to him and his colleagues for the work they have done, which we have drawn on extensively in the proposals before us today.
"Prison and rehabilitation after custody can be made to work only if those subject to punishment are forced to address their behaviour. Sending more people to prison but seeing more return only to reoffend again is unacceptable. Addressing the causes is therefore essential for success.
"Together with the Department of Health, we have now adopted a radical new policy for health investment to tackle a range of problems from mental health to drug misuse. This year, over 50,000 prisoners have received clinical detoxification, 5,000 undertaking drug rehabilitation programmes and 40 per cent of all prisoners signing voluntary drug compacts.
"Equally, through education, training and work programmes, we have dramatically changed the opportunity to redeem the behaviour and attitude of those in prison. In 1997, figures were not collected on educational achievement. This year, almost 50,000 prisoners will gain basic skills qualifications, and we have put in place, with the Department for Work and Pensions, the custody-to-work programme which is already showing signs of substantial success.

87
"Last year, 30 per cent of prisoners entered work or training, a transformation from the past, and 25 per cent of prisoners had a job on release, compared with 10 per cent 10 years ago. The creation of the Youth Justice Board five years ago and the new National Probation Service in 2001 have made a substantial difference.
"The YJB has been responsible for developing the intensive supervision and surveillance programme as an alternative to secure accommodation. We are now looking to even more imaginative ways of using a combination of satellite tracking with peer mentoring to work with offenders in the community.
"The probation service has developed drug testing and treatment orders, which are the first effective community sentence for drug abusers and are now being supported by the Criminal Justice Intervention Programme. The probation service is developing the Intensive Change and Control Programme, which is a community-based sentence for adult offenders.
"There is also now real momentum behind restorative justice to encourage responsibility, to address offending behaviour and to make amends to the victim where appropriate.
"This month, we are piloting a radical new approach to custodial sentencing. Kirkham for men and Morton Hall for women will be the first establishments to experiment with periods of intermittent custody, such as prison at weekends.
"The new sentencing framework introduced in the Criminal Justice Act is central to reducing crime and therefore reoffending. We have introduced new mandatory life sentences for the most heinous crimes, custody minus and custody plus, covering a range of crimes, and much tougher punishment and enforcement for breaches. I want to see robust, intensive community programmes replace ineffective, short custodial sentences in a way which allows us to take decisive action where breaches occur.
"These reforms will help to deliver considerable improvement in performance of the correctional services by ensuring both joined-up policy and joined-up delivery. But we believe we must take further steps for improvement and more radical progress. Together with the Department for Constitutional Affairs, we will look to link the enforcement of fines and fixed penalty notices as a first deterrent prior to the need for community or custodial sentencing. We will be examining the potential for linking fines with the ability to pay as an alternative to custody.
"In building on existing reforms, our strategy will place renewed focus on the appropriate intervention for the specific crime. But if we are to deliver further transformation, we need significant organisational change. This, of course, includes the management of the services themselves, including the rooting out of unacceptable practices, such as racism and bullying.
88
That is why I am announcing today the establishment of a single service to manage offenders.
"The new National Offender Management Service will have direct responsibility for the punishment and rehabilitation of adult offenders both in custody and in the community. I am pleased to announce that Martin Narey, former Director-General of the Prison Service, will be the new chief executive of the service.
"We are also announcing today the establishment of a National Offender Management Board, chaired by my honourable friend the Minister for correctional services. We will be making separate announcements in due course in relation to the inspection regime, which will remain independent.
"We intend to learn the lessons from the use of contestability within the Prison Service. Contestability will extend to not-for-profit and voluntary organisations which we invite to come forward to work in partnership with the service. We believe that the task of integrating the management of offenders is best achieved at regional and local level, where effective links can be forged and joined-up strategies developed. These will include working with complementary services, including health, education, housing and employment.
"We will create 10 regional offender managers, responsible for end-to-end management of offenders, covering the nine English regions and Wales. We will, as part of the overall review of the location of government posts, be looking to decentralise more of the service. The regional offender managers will be responsible for ensuring effective case management. They will contract for prison places, community placements, supervision and other critical interventions as part of the new partnership approach.
"But I believe that the judiciary can be much better informed about the effectiveness of different forms of sentencing and more aware of what is likely to be most effective for particular individuals. We introduced in the Criminal Justice Act the new Sentencing Guidelines Council to formulate a comprehensive set of guidelines. I have agreed with the Lord Chief Justice and the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs that it is important that greater knowledge of effective interventions, including the cost-effectiveness of different approaches, should inform the work of the Sentencing Guidelines Council. This will be crucial to the work of the judiciary and magistracy at regional and local level.
"In the first instance, we would seek their urgent intervention in eliminating the drift in sentence length and a reduction in unjustified variations in sentencing across the country. I expect these reforms to lead to a much more effective, consistent and transparent criminal justice system.
"But it is those working in the service who will bear the brunt both of the challenges and of the change in the future. I wish to pay tribute to the staff

89
in the prison and probation services, and in the YJB, whose expertise has contributed so much to the achievements that I have already highlighted in this Statement. These changes are an assertion of our confidence in those who work with offenders and of our belief that the new arrangements will help substantially to make their work in custody and the community significantly more effective.
"I repeat: reducing reoffending by better protecting our communities. by punishing offenders more transparently and by equipping them to avoid a return to criminality is our key objective. I know this goal will be shared by both the House and the country as a whole. I commend the Statement to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.26 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating to your Lordships the Statement made by the Home Secretary in another place. As my right honourable friend Mr David Davis made clear, there are many aspects of the Statement with which we on this side of the House agree. In particular, we want to pay tribute to the staff of the Prison Service, the probation service and the Youth Justice Board, who carry out their duties conscientiously in what are often very difficult circumstances. On the latter, I pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Warner, who, in his previous role, did so much for the Youth Justice Board. We also wish Mr Martin Narey well in his new role as chief executive of the co-ordinating body.
However, I have to say that this Government have been in power for six years and there has been much tough talk on sentencing. But there is an ever-increasing number of crimes and imprisonable offences, and the question of new prison building has been continually dodged. The inevitable result is the overflowing of prisons and prisoners in police cells with the attendant cost and so forth. Of course, we welcome the extra 14,700 prison places, largely possible thanks to investment and plans made by the previous government. However, that still leaves the situation where, by 2006, 8,000 more places than the Prison Service can manage will be needed. That is very much a bottom-line figure and I understand that some estimates put the figure as high as 22,000.
So the emphasis once again shifts back to the unsettling statistic that three-quarters of young offenders reoffend, setting them off on a lifetime of criminality. I hope that, as part of his review, the Home Secretary will commit himself to addressing, almost above all others, the question of a reduction in reoffending rates.
Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that we also welcome the use of the private and voluntary sectors in assisting the probation service. Like my right honourable friend, we welcome the Home Secretary's conversion to "contestability", which he correctly, I feel, interprets as new-Labour speak for "privatisation".
90
The 4,300 extra staff in the Prison Service are also to be welcomed. But I must repeat a remark made to my right honourable friend by a member of the probation service that,
"we are drowning in audits and inspections and regulations and have very little time left to deal with offenders"
That is yet another example of, in many cases, needless red tape to which my right honourable friend Mr Michael Howard in his new year message to my party committed himself to addressing with vigour.
It is our view that these proposals are flawed by excessive centralisation in the hands of the Home Secretary, which is blunting the effect of so many of these good initiatives. The Intensive Change and Control Programmes, which work in many cases so well in other countries, are not working here. The depressing statistic that 70 per cent of prisoners who have been on these courses reoffend after just nine months leads one to the conclusion that these may be regarded as an early way out of prison to relieve numbers, but sadly also an early way back.
The noble Baroness in her Statement made the point that 500,000 prisoners this year will receive basic skills training. Does she agree that the moving on of the prisoners all too often blunts the benefits of this to prisoners? We accept that in many cases this is necessary; for instance, moving them for compassionate reasons to be near their family. Can she assure the House that the question is being addressed of these moves being kept to an absolute minimum so that initiatives such as basic skills training are not impaired?
The Minister has reminded the House that 50,000 prisoners have received clinical de-codification but that only 5,000 have undertaken drug rehabilitation. This supports our frequently expressed calls for a tenfold increase in residential rehabilitation programmes. I urge the Minister to consider, in particular, the Minnesota rehabilitation programme in the United States, which has had such encouraging results.
The noble Baroness has spoken about linking fines with the ability to pay. That is fine so far as it goes. However, the Government must go further and address the fact that one fine in three is unpaid and that currently there are 276 million fines outstanding. Also, we need reassurance that fines and community penalties are not used simply to make places available in gaols.
There is much in the Statement that we can applaud. We are not happy with the Government's record on a number of points, which I have attempted to outline, but noble Lords from these Benches will continue to make what I hope are constructive criticisms. In particular, I shall read with interest the report that has been published today.
3.32 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, like the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, we on these Benches welcome warmly much of the Statement and the context and tone in which it was delivered, both in this House and in another place. We all owe a great debt to Patrick Carter for the report.

91
Of course, the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, put his finger on the issue: this is a Statement in the sixth year of a Labour Government. In many ways, although the report is progressive, its analysis is damning. I give two brief quotes:
"Sentences are poorly targeted and do not bear down sufficiently on serious, dangerous and highly persistent offenders. The increased use of prison and probation since 1997 has been concentrated on first time offenders, leading to poor use of additional investment".
The truth is that the report offers the Government an opportunity for a watershed in our treatment of offenders. We have had a decade under three successive Home Secretaries—not least Michael Howard, outdone by Jack Straw, and subsequently outdone by David Blunkett—in which the Home Secretary of the day has chosen to play to the prejudices of the Daily Mail rather than to address some of the issues pinpointed in this report. NACRO's statement of welcome this afternoon made this very point. It stated:
"A reversal of the rising use of prison is unlikely to occur unless there is a change in political rhetoric about crime. Constant tough talk by politicians affects the climate in which courts operate and makes it more punitive".
The truth is that the criticisms and statements of penal policy from these Benches and from noble Lords elsewhere with experience are not simply woolly liberalism. They are the observation from experiences around the world that there are better ways of treating offenders than building more and more prisons and cramming people into those prisons, which in fact simply become universities of crime for reoffending. So we certainly welcome the report and the tone of the Statement. But that comes on the back of a fairly bleak record of how successive Home Secretaries have chosen to position this problem and its solutions.
We certainly welcome the emphasis on community-based restorative justice and we urge improved visibility for community service uses. We welcome the new structure for the prison and probation service. However, my worry is twofold. There are considerable differences in culture between the probation service and the Prison Service. Their merger must be carefully managed to make sure that the best elements of both cultures survive into the new service. While the Government are creating a new correctional service, they have a marvellous opportunity to try to rehabilitate the probation service and its workers from the kind of image and pillorying they have received in our popular press, which has had a tremendous effect on morale within that service. We really need to put the resources and the political confidence into this new correctional service for it to work correctly.
Likewise, with the new role for the ombudsman. There is an extensive increase in responsibilities for the ombudsman. Again, it will make sense only if the resources are there for the ombudsman to take on that new role.
The report also identifies the worrying aspect of the increase of women suicides in prison, which needs a direct and immediate response from the Government.
92
Finally, there is the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, about the balance between banging prisoners up and playing to the gallery and creating a prison service that really tackles the problem. It is more than 20 years since, as an MP, I visited Strangeways Prison. I walked past unused lathes, turners and training machinery that was mothballed for lack of resources, while prisoners were banged up for 23 hours per day. It was no surprise when, within months of that visit, the prisoners were on the roof rioting. It seems to me that we have not yet learnt the lesson that imprisonment should be an opportunity to give offenders the chance to get off drugs and to train for a more responsible role in society.
Much of the rhetoric of the Statement in response to the report and the report itself give that opportunity. I am afraid that the jury is still out about whether the Government will take it.
3.39 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and the noble Lord. Lord McNally, for the warmth of their welcome. As barbed as were some of their comments, the warmth overwhelmed them. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary absolutely agrees with one thing said by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, which is that this is a once in a generation opportunity. We also agree with Patrick Carter's analysis and aim: to ensure that offenders are punished, the public are protected and the appropriate help is available to reduce offending.
I must tell the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, that the Government have done a great deal during the past six years to bring about significant change. The proposals contained in the Statement build on the work of the two services and would not have been possible were it not for the investment made by the Government and the huge improvements that have been brought about in performance. The Government will always ensure that there are sufficient prison places for serious and dangerous offenders, but in many cases what is needed is a tough, credible community-based punishment. As both noble Lords said, we need to rebuild fines as a credible punishment and build credible community alternatives as well.
To respond to the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, on prisons, I remind him with the greatest gentleness that since May 1997, 14,700 additional places had been provided, including several new prisons. That has been very much this Government's effort. Although I accept that others may have started the journey, we have completed it. Prison operational capacity is at 75,000 places—as noble Lords will know, there is an operational marginal of 2,000—and that will be increased to 78,700 by 2006, which is up by 3,700, with the same additional operating margin of 2,000.
Investment in probation has been significant. We absolutely understand the challenge highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. The image that has been portrayed by some of rehabilitation and probation is inaccurate. That is why it gave me great pleasure to commend from this Dispatch Box the work done so well by our probation officers, prison officers and

93
others in non-governmental organisations that have worked with them to bring about the change in education.
That is a challenging agenda, but I hope that noble Lords will be assured that our past commitment has involved a significant increase in the financial support given to the services to bring that about. For probation alone, funding is at £830 million for 2003–04—up by £100 million from last year. It will rise again by £100 million during the next two years—by £30 million next year and by £80 million thereafter. We will also fund the annual increases in staff of about 750—up by 4 per cent—in the first year; by 1,150 in the second year, which is up by 6 per cent; and then by 1,600, which is up by 8 per cent. So staff numbers will rise by 4,300 from 14,700 in 1997–98 to 19,000 in 2003–04. That is a significant commitment and speaks well of the Government's overall commitment.
I heard what was said about rhetoric. Speaking entirely for myself, I listen to what people say but I really watch what they do. I respectfully say that what we have done to bring about change is very impressive. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, raised the issue of suicides. We have given the issue a great deal of attention. Noble Lords will know that there is an independent investigation of all deaths in custody by the Prisons arid Probation Ombudsman to help the Prison Service to reduce the number of deaths. Since 1997, we have invested millions of pounds in reducing suicides, including setting up the partnership between the Samaritans and the Prison Service. We shall continue to commit ourselves to those matters to ensure that deaths are reduced to the minimum level.
As I said, I welcome the warmth of the welcome that has been given to the Statement and the complimentary comment about the context and tone, with which I am totally ad idem.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, I join in thanking the Minister for her Statement. She will not mind my commenting—because it is not in any way her fault—that although my noble friend's comment about it was polite, the Statement had a tone of self-congratulation that is not especially convincing or congenial in this House.
Of course it is true that the work of the probation and prison services must be brought ever more closely together—especially in matters of resettlement. I entirely agree that there is much ground to make up there. But does the Minister also accept that different skills are involved here, which is why there have been two different services? She and I can think of many people who have been excellent probation officers but who would be no good as prison governors, and the other way round. There is concern, especially in the probation service, among individuals of long experience and great skill that their skills will be diluted or ignored in the change. Will she give some reassurance on that?
I have two specific questions. First, to what extent will the changes announced today require fresh legislation? Secondly, the Minister mentioned the
94
inspectorate, but only in order to say that further work is being undertaken on it. She made an important statement about independence—Members of this House have been concerned about that in the past. Does she accept that independence does not consist only of maintaining the principle that the two inspectorates publish what they wish to publish and report independently of politics to the Home Secretary and the public? The reserves of skill that they have accumulated over the years must also not he dissipated by reorganisation—they must not only be independent but continue to be effective in their independence.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, made some important points with which I can agree. For the avoidance of doubt, we very much value the difference in the skills exhibited by probation officers and in the Prison Service. They have different but complementary functions and we want to lose the skills of neither.
From our criminal justice debates, noble Lords will know that we are trying to develop a more holistic approach to the management of the offender, so that it will be seamless. In order to do that effectively, we are bringing the service together, but we will rely on the skills and ability of the Prison Service and the officers within it and the skills of the probation service and their development.
As for whether the changes will require fresh legislation, we do not believe that our recommendations will. In the Criminal Justice Act 2003, we have already introduced a framework and do not think that any additional legislative change will be necessary to implement most of the recommendations—the major ones. Of course, if we discover difficulties with some of the minutiae, we will come back.
Your Lordships will know that the nature of the inspectorate has not yet been definitively decided, but it is clear that it must be independent, robust in its operation, fair and frank. Having had the advantage of holding the office of Home Secretary, the noble Lord will know how vital it is for us to receive independent advice on how the service is being delivered. We are entirely committed to maintaining the independence and efficacy of inspections.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I welcome the new emphasis on education, training and work programmes in prisons but will my noble friend confirm that prison and probation is not about process—ticking the boxes of key performance indicators—but outcomes, mainly measured by falling rates of reconviction? Can she explain how the measures will end the position where 74 in every 100 prisoners under the age of 21 are back behind bars within two years?
Will she visit Mount Prison in Bovingdon, which I was able to do last month, to see the impressive range of rehabilitation work under way there, including the use of longer serving prisoners as mentors to those who are to be released earlier? Will she also guarantee that

95
there will be enough cash to turn the Statement's ambitions for rehabilitation into reality across the system?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can certainly reassure my noble friend Lord Corbett that that is our expressed intent. We too are monitoring carefully the impressive projects that are being carried out in a number of our prisons. We are seeking to identify what works so that we can spread that practice more widely. We have been encouraged, for instance, by the work of Youth Justice Board for England and Wales. Its efforts have significantly reduced recidivism among young offenders. It has fallen by 22 per cent, which is a very real reduction. We wish to take advantage of all the intelligence that we have available to make sure that that can be replicated across the piece. I agree with my noble friend about its importance. I cannot guarantee that I shall have an opportunity to go to Mount Prison, but I shall certainly ensure that the invitation is heard by my private office and indeed by the Minister responsible for prisons, unless he may beat me to it.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, there is a degree of humbug in much of the Statement. The Minister will no doubt recall that Schedule 19 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 was the product of the Home Secretary personally. It was his conditioned reflex to the courts having declared that the European Convention on Human Rights, accepted by the Government, disentitled him from playing any part, as this House had frequently pointed out, in the sentencing of people convicted of murder.
Schedule 19 resulted in his laying down minimum sentences that were at least 50 per cent greater than those which had been agreed a year previously, thus jacking up the whole of the sentencing regime for serious offences. The Minister will no doubt recall—hence my reference to "humbug"—how Schedule 19 pre-empted the Sentencing Guidelines Council, resulting in judicial discretion being removed and judges being prevented from sentencing according to the justice of the case. As a result, the suggestion that 8,000 more places are required is a gross underestimate. If the sentencing regime for all serious offences is jacked up as a result of the Home Secretary's Schedule 19, the Prison Service will find itself in an impossible position.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am delighted that we are returning to a subject that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and I have debated on a number of occasions, so he will not be surprised by my saying that I do not agree with him. The noble and learned Lord will recall from our almost endless conversations on the matter that Schedule 19 provides the court with a starting point. It is not a minimum term; it is a starting point, with aggravating and mitigating features that the court can take into account in determining the nature and length of the sentence. I respectfully suggest to the noble and learned Lord that that does not detract from the
96
exercise of discretion, but rather it burdens the judge with exercising his judgment with a greater degree of acuity and clarity than was perhaps always obvious to the outside observer. It perhaps makes it easier for one to understand why the decision has been reached.
It would be verging on the unfair—I hesitate to say it to the noble and learned Lord, because I know that he would never wish to be unfair—to describe the Statement as "humbug". It is an accurate reflection of that to which we aspire in terms of sentencing. We have made it clear, as we did during the passage of the Criminal Justice Bill, that the Government are wholly committed to ensuring that only those who need to be in prison, because of the nature of their offence or pattern of offending behaviour and for whom alternative sentences are not appropriate, should be there. We have made that point repeatedly.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has called for longer sentences for murderers and for serious offenders who have committed the most heinous crimes, but not for other offenders for whom we believe rehabilitation, restitution and recovery are possible.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I welcome the emphasis on prison education in the Statement. Does the Minister agree that education is the saviour of many an offender and prevents him reoffending? Does she further agree that the greatest barrier to delivering effective education programmes in prisons is overcrowding? It causes the demoralisation of the prison officers and a high level of sick leave. As the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, has mentioned, prisoners have to be moved around from one prison to another and are unable to complete their programmes. Noble Lords may have shared my incredulity in hearing the Home Secretary blame the judiciary for sentencing drift, in the light of the fact that since the Government came to power, they have introduced about 700 new criminal offences in addition to the jacking-up of sentences to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, referred.
In light of that, perhaps the Minister will indicate what chance the Sentencing Guidelines Council will have of stopping sentencing drift and the inexorable rise of the prison population, about which Her Majesty's Government appear to be proud. I share the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, on the self-congratulatory tone of the Statement in respect of the increased number of prison places and the building of seven new prisons. I should have thought that that is an indictment and an admission of the Government's failure to tackle the rise in crime and to reduce the rate of reoffending.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not accept that the rise is the result solely of the efforts of the Government. There has been sentencing drift. The noble Baroness will recall from our debates on the Criminal Justice Bill that we referred to the imbalance in sentences from one part of the country to another. In the north-west, driving offences are dealt with in one way, whereas in places such as Essex, drivers who are found guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol have a 74 per cent chance of going to prison.

97
There are regional variations that have nothing to do with government policy, because the same law is applied in very different ways in different areas of the country.
The drift in custodial sentencing in magistrates' courts has more than tripled. It has risen from five per cent to 17 per cent. In Crown Courts, it has nearly doubled, rising from 17 per cent to 28 per cent in the past 10 years. There have been changes in the way in which non-serious and non-violent offences are dealt with. Sentencing drift for theft and handling offences has nearly tripled. Eight per cent of offenders used to be sent to prison; that proportion has now risen to 22 per cent. For motoring offences, the figure has risen by 500 per cent for men and by 400 per cent for women.
We must address those drifts and changes in pattern. They cannot with due fairness and propriety be held at the Government's door. There has been a drift in the sentencing pattern. The Sentencing Guidelines Council will help greatly to stop the drift, because there will be very clear bench-marks to deal with regional variations. It will not mean that we will have total uniformity across the country, because at various times an offence may be more serious in one area and it would be totally explicable why that area might be dealt with differently. It is to be hoped that inexplicable variations will he minimised. That is a major improvement.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the welcome part of the prologue to the Statement is what amounts almost to the formal reinstatement of rehabilitation as a principal aim of the Prison Service. It is very important to recognise that when you bang the door on a prisoner the problem is not solved; it has reached its peak. Not banging the door is very important, too. Therefore, I welcome the new respectability and importance given to restorative justice.
All that comes very late in the criminal career. Noble Lords have heard me say previously that, if only all that ingenuity and money could be thrown into reaching people before they become criminals, we would all be happier and the prisons would be much emptier. I am very puzzled by the following two-line paragraph:
"The new National Offender Management Service will have direct responsibility for the punishment and rehabilitation of adult offenders both in custody and the community".
Once again, we are coming in late in the criminal career. What is being done about juvenile offenders in this great effort, or will they be left in their seething thousands to feed the whole process when it is too late?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that it is important to start as early as possible to ensure that people do not continue on an offending pattern throughout their lives. The Youth Justice Board will therefore continue the efforts that it is currently investing in that. On other occasions the noble Lord has commended the Youth Justice Board's work and its innovative use of mentoring, intervention and
98
school programmes. All that will continue, and we hope that the Youth Justice Board's good work will continue to thrive.
As the noble Lord knows, for some time the other concern has been, "You are doing all that for young, offenders, but what are you doing about adult offenders to try to replicate the interventions that are proving so positive?". That is our answer regarding what we seek to do with adult offenders. I reassure the House that we will continue to ensure that the link between the adult criminal path and the juvenile path is managed carefully. I agree with the noble Lord that the earlier we can intervene in an offender's offending pattern of behaviour, the better.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords—
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords—
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, although I welcome many of the points in the Statement, does not the Minister agree that the other side of the coin is that we need to increase considerably our efforts to explain honestly to the public that, over many years, short prison sentences have been a failure—that is quite clear because we have so much re-offending—and that community service or intermittent custody is an effective way of reducing crime because it is likely to prevent too much re-offending? The need to convince the public is very important, as the public normally suggest that a proper sentence for anyone is to send them to prison—that is widely seen. With the changes we need a real effort to convince people that a move towards community sentences and to intermittent custody is the way forward
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand and empathise very much with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson. The whole point is that the public must see that that is the case. We are trying to engage local communities to participate in their local criminal justice process so that they can see, touch and hear the consequences of what is happening. That is how people will discover for themselves that community penalties will be more effective. We will certainly do all that we can to ensure that the public have a proper understanding of what we have now discovered about what works, what does not work and what helps us to bring about change.

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
4.5 p.m.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill is part of a step change in the Government's policies for building successful, thriving and inclusive communities in all the regions of the country. We need to work together at all levels to improve local economies; to promote safety and stability; to provide quality public

99
services; to build skills and knowledge; and to engage and empower communities. A reformed planning system is a key tool in delivering sustainable communities.
Planning is important. It is critical to the delivery of new housing, transport infrastructure, hospitals and schools. It is also important because we must ensure that we make the best use of land: increasing development on brownfield sites and protecting and enhancing our green belt and valuable countryside.
The current planning system has served the country well but needs reform. All governments have failed to address the problems of the planning system as they have built up over the years. Too many councils fall far short of the targets for handling planning applications. Too many local plans are out of date and no longer reflect the realities that many communities face. We issued a planning Green Paper in December 2001. There were some 16,000 responses, one of the biggest responses to consultations on record, which demonstrated the importance of the planning system. There was a consensus about the need for change, and we listened. We continue to listen as the Bill starts its passage through this House.
The Bill has had considerable debate in the other place, as no doubt many noble Lords will realise. Some might say that it has had unprecedented scrutiny, simply because it is the first Bill that has come over the loop from one Session to another. It has been through two Committee sessions in the other place, totalling 20 sessions and some 55 and a half hours of debate. The objectives of the Bill are quite straightforward; they sound almost banal. We want to make the system fairer, faster and more predictable. We want to bring clarity, certainty and a more strategic direction to planning.
I emphasise that the Bill is only part of a wider package of reform that is not just about legislation. The extra £350 million announced in July 2002 for the planning system over a three-year period, for example, is nothing to do with the Bill. It is ongoing, and in February we will announce the money for the second of the three years. Extra money will go to those authorities that demonstrate their commitment to high-quality planning. It is not just about setting targets for local authorities and asking them to do better. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is leading the way in setting itself challenging targets for handling cases called in by the Secretary of State. We are making progress on that already. Successful planning reform depends also on a change to the culture of planning. We need to improve education and training, to raise skills and morale for planners and councillors, and to look at ways to spread best practice and provide help and guidance for local authorities.
What will the Bill do? It simplifies the plan-led process by abolishing the middle tier of planning—the structure plans—that exists in some areas; that is to say, areas where there are county councils and two-tier local government. The new system will have two linked levels of planning: regional spatial strategies and local development frameworks. The local development frameworks will be made up each of a set of local development documents, which each authority will be required to prepare. Together, these documents will
100
replace local plans and unitary development plans. They will set out development proposals and have a clear map so that everyone can see what goes where.
Each authority will prepare a local development scheme, which will list the local development documents that it will prepare, and the timetable for producing them. There has been considerable debate about the new arrangements for local planning and how complex, it is alleged, they appear in the Bill. I am not aware of any legislation where the provisions in the Bill are the whole story—I emphasise that point at the outset. They will be expanded and clarified in secondary legislation and, of course, the volumes of planning guidance. We were trying to cut down on those, but we are also refreshing planning guidance. So the Bill is not the whole story. Recognising this, we will be holding a presentation to explain the arrangements in more detail later this month.
The counties will be consultees on regional plans, and will continue to be responsible for transport, waste, and mineral plans. The regions can use the counties as agents on sub-regional planning. The Bill will also enable counties to work with districts, where agreed, on local plans. We realise that there are concerns about this. We expect county councils to play an important role under the new arrangements.
Our policy intention is unambiguous, but I know, from conversations I have had and conversations my ministerial colleagues have had with county councillors, that concerns remain. They welcome our commitment to guidance, but they need reassurance that this will be turned into action. They want to see further safeguards of involvement in the Bill. We recognise this concern and the wish for change. At the same time, we want to avoid creating unnecessary bureaucracy or practical difficulties on the ground, so we should not make any changes to the Bill that will provide opportunities for unreasonable obstruction or delay to delivery. We are working hard on seeing if this can be achieved. I am fairly confident that we will find a solution to this as the Bill passes through your Lordships' House.
The role of parishes is unchanged by the Bill. Central to our reforms in the Bill is better community involvement. Local planning authorities will have to prepare statements of community involvement. They will have to set out how they will consult with local communities on preparing local development documents and significant planning applications. The Bill also contains a provision for making grants under which we will provide grants to organisations such as Planning Aid. I know, from my former role in the other place, how valuable organisations such as Planning Aid are to Members of Parliament in helping their constituents to get professional advice to deal with some complex planning situations.
We will allow such organisations to be more pro-active and we will target communities that traditionally do not get involved in the planning system, in particular groups in deprived areas or representing the socially excluded.
We will introduce also a statutory purpose for planning. This sets out what we want planning to be for: a planning system which supports sustainable development. Clause 38 is one of the clauses that has

101
remained unchanged by the numbering process, which when I went to the Bill the other day was slightly different to that which was originally introduced. Clause 38 imposes a duty on those with plan-making functions under Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill to,
"exercise the function with a view to contributing to the achievement of sustainable development".
The Bill also introduces local development orders. Developers will be able to request a statement of development principles. There are also provisions to speed up the planning process for applicants and to introduce greater clarity, such as standard application forms. The Bill will also stamp out abuses brought about by the failure of the system—I do not criticize developers—by preventing repeat applications and twin-tracked applications. I fully understand why that situation has arisen, because of the way the planning system has developed over the years.
The Bill also reduces planning permission from five years to three years, but this can be extended where projects are particularly difficult. The onus is not just on local authorities. The Bill requires the Secretary of State to set a timetable for decisions on "called in" planning applications and recovered appeals and related decisions. It introduces a duty for statutory consultees to respond to consultation requests within a specified time and to report on their performance.
The Bill will also speed up the processing of major infrastructure projects. There will be a three-part approach. First, it requires a clearer government policy statement on any issue concerning a major infrastructure project. One example, which I would not have been able to give if the Bill had come before the House earlier, is the recent airports White Paper. There must be clarity about the Government's policy. Time must not be wasted at a major infrastructure inquiry on deciding what the policy is. There is a requirement for clearer government statements.
There will be new inquiry rules that will allow inspectors to make better use of inquiry time. The Bill will put in place new procedures that will allow a team of inspectors to operate concurrently on an inquiry. I emphasise to your Lordships that that is not about stifling debate. I would play no part in that and nor would other Ministers. Everyone will be able adequately to express their views on major infrastructure projects. This is not the original proposal that was put forward in the White Paper. That proposal, I think, included the idea that there ought to be a parliamentary element in the process. I must say frankly that, when my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister and I arrived at the ODPM, we had a chat about it for five minutes, and we thought that it was not a workable idea. It would have involved Members of Parliament in what would have been executive decisions. That is not the function of Parliament in any event. We made our position clear on that.
We also had to find a different way of dealing with major infrastructure projects, so that we could avoid a situation such as that which occurred—I put it no more strongly than that—with Terminal 5 at
102
Heathrow airport. No one will be snuffed out or prevented from making their views known at major infrastructure inquiries.
The Bill also introduces changes to what are known as Section 106 notices. These relate to the complex and slow negotiations on the provision of infrastructure and community facilities by developers, sometimes called "planning gain" and sometimes called ruder things by other people. Originally, in the White Paper, we consulted on the proposal for a tariff approach to help avoid such issues and bring clarity. We decided at the time, when we made the Statement before the Bill was published, not to go down that route but to see whether we could modify, update and modernise the Section 106 procedure. We considered it in the context of the growth areas and of what will happen in the Thames Gateway.
Last summer, when the discussions about the Bill and its related processes and about how we should proceed were taking place in the Government, we had the opportunity, by referring it back to Committee in the other place, to take extra time on the Bill, carry it over from one Session to the next, and revisit what we wanted to do to modernise the Section 106 procedures. As will be seen in the way in which the Bill is now drafted, taking account of the amendments made in the other place, we are modernising Section 106, while giving developers an alternative route by which they can, if they wish, avoid lengthy negotiations by paying a charge. There are, in effect, two routes for dealing with that problem. It will, in many ways, be up to the developer to decide which way to go. There are also provisions to make sure that developers do not pay twice, because, sometimes, Section 106 arrangements will still have to made, even if there is a charge. The consultation that is going on will close at the end of the week.
The Bill also introduces and sets up business planning zones. It reforms the development plan system in Wales. The basic pattern of development plans in Wales will be retained. Local development plans will be simpler, more concise documents than the present unitary development plans. Procedures will be simplified and community participation will be improved. Provision is also made for the National Assembly for Wales to prepare and publish a national spatial plan for Wales.
As is implicit in the title, there are also matters in the Bill relating to compulsory purchase. Where it is necessary to use compulsory purchase powers to assemble land for regeneration and large-scale projects, the implementation of our proposals should help speed up the process. We intend to achieve that by making the basis on which local authorities can exercise their powers clearer and more positive, while improving compensation levels by introducing additional loss payments. Among other issues, the Bill also abolishes Crown immunity, which we were able to put in the Bill due to the extra time that it was considered in the other place in its second Committee stage. That is an important issue, which has long been promised.

103
Later, I shall do my best to respond to the points made in this debate. To sum up this short introduction, the Bill sets out a reform planning system for this new century that will help us to deliver sustainable communities faster and more fairly—it is no good being faster unless it is fairer. That will help us to meet the challenges for the future and to deal with the problems that we inherit at present. I believe that it will also protect the heritage from the past. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Rooker)
4.21 p.m.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I am very pleased to open the debate on behalf of the Opposition. I am grateful to the Minister for his helpful introduction, particularly the points that he made about county council involvement and major infrastructure planning decisions. I shall comment on those two issues during my speech.
Perhaps I may say at the outset that we recognise that planning is an extremely complex business, requiring the careful weighing of many different interests. Often it is not possible, however good the system, to achieve a balance that satisfies all stakeholders. The current planning framework has negotiated that balance well for many years. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that, in spite of its imperfections, we have one of the best planning systems in the world. We know that because as we travel we can see it. As always, however, the system could work better. With that in mind, there are parts of the Bill that we welcome. I shall mention those later. There is, however, much in the Bill that we fundamentally oppose.
We could say that the Bill introduced by the Minister today nationalises the planning system. It gives the Secretary of State the power to set planning frameworks at the regional level and to direct local planning policies. It creates an enormous vacuum between strategic and local planning. It destroys the balance between efficiency and local accountability on which all planning systems should be built. Rather than simplifying the planning system, as claimed by the Minister, the Bill risks introducing more complexity, more bureaucracy and more delay, while making it remote and less democratically accountable.
We all want to see a fast and effective planning system that serves the needs of local people and a system that balances the requirements of sensible development with the need to protect the environment in a sustainable way. We all want the current system to be more efficient and more transparent. Many people think that the Government's legislation will not achieve that. It has largely and unwisely ignored the concerns expressed by many relevant and interested bodies, such as the LGA, the Planning Officers Society, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the National Trust and the CBI.
104
Many experts have consistently argued that improving the imperfections of the existing system, which has served us well for many years, would be a far better solution than the fundamental changes that we are debating today. If the Government are to tear down the architecture of the current planning system with all the upheaval and costs that that will entail, we should be confident that it will be replaced by a better system. I fear that that will not be the case. So what lies behind those sweeping changes?
One answer might lie in the Government's regions agenda. The Government know that they will lose their argument for regional assemblies at the ballot box, so they are ploughing ahead with their "regions by stealth" agenda. We have already seen plans for the regionalisation of the fire and emergency planning services. This is the next step.
In commenting on the role of county councils, as noble Lords will know, I am particularly involved as leader of Essex County Council. By seeking to abolish the role of county councils in producing structure plans and introducing the requirement for regional planning bodies to produce regional spatial strategies, the Government are prejudging the voice and choice of people across vast swathes of England. The Government would give unelected, unaccountable and remote regional bodies the power to decide planning issues that may affect towns and villages hundreds of miles away.
Exacerbating that democratic deficit, one can find measures throughout the Bill that increase the centralisation of planning. Either via legislation or via order-making powers, the Secretary of State assumes an enormous range of powers. He controls regional spatial strategies which, in turn, will determine local development plans. If any particular local development plan is not to his liking, he can simply intervene to have it changed. Why not cut out the middleman and just have the whole thing done in Whitehall in the first place? No doubt that would speed up the system fairly effectively, if that is the Government's chief objective.
As regards local development documents, the inspector's report will be binding on the local authority, no matter how half-baked the conclusions. That represents a further weakening of local democracy. We shall table amendments that enable local authorities to retain discretion or to depart from the inspector's recommendations if there is a good cause. The Bill would abolish the current role of county councils in the planning system. That would be a fundamental mistake; we shall seek to persuade the Government on that issue in Committee. Obviously, I was interested to hear the Minister's comments.
Without a key role for county councils, it is hard to envisage how the gap between regional planning and local planning can be bridged. It is simply too large without an intervening mechanism. For example, South Buckinghamshire District Council's local development plan will be for an area with a population of 62,000 residents. But the next level of planning—the regional spatial strategy for the south east—will directly affect 8 million people, which is equivalent to

105
the population of Austria. There will be nothing statutory in between to join up those plans. Surely the Government can see the problems that is likely to cause.
Clause 19 provides a further example of the centralisation inherent in the Bill. Clause 19(1) states:
"The local planning authority must submit every development plan document to the Secretary of State for independent examination".
If everyone is satisfied locally with a development plan, why does it need to be referred to the Secretary of State? Surely the purpose of a statement of community involvement is to provide a safeguard to ensure proper consultation. Having introduced that safeguard, why does the Secretary of State need to involve himself in every single local development plan?
Occasionally we hear Ministers on the Benches opposite mention something called "new localism". Apparently, that is about devolving power down to the local level. Certainly, that is not a concept that enjoys much credence with the planning Minister. It is a prime example of old Whitehall centralism rearing its ugly head once more.
Regional planning bodies will not be able to match county councils' grasp of the truly local, nor manage sub-regional planning as effectively. There is no evidence that county councils are responsible for any of the failures in the current system. It would have been far better to incorporate some of the logic of "spatial strategies" into structure plans and to improve the cross-county mechanisms for developing regional planning guidance than to engage in this bonfire of the existing system.
County councils responsible for providing services with significant land-use functions, such as education, social services and community safety, and with continuing responsibility for minerals, waste and transport plans, will no longer have a key role in strategic planning. Do we really believe that that will lead to better planning outcomes?
Those are functions that cannot be easily divorced and a reduction in the ability to integrate different strategies and plans will surely follow. This would achieve the precise opposite of the Government's aims. Overall, the key role played by county councils in balancing the social, economic and environmental well-being of their areas will be seriously undermined by the effective removal of their strategic planning function.
I am also afraid that in creating this new policy the strategic planning capability of county councils will simply leak out of the system for two reasons. First, county councils will find it difficult to justify non-statutory spending on planning when they are under so much pressure to transfer resources to education and social services. Secondly, history tells us that a major restructure of local planning will almost certainly lead to a mass exodus of highly skilled planners, at a time when the national shortage of planning staff is one of the major reasons for the problems in the current system.
106
So far I have dealt with the weaknesses in the Bill that stem from the Government's regions pipedream and I shall return to them in Committee. For now, however, I shall move on to other parts of the Bill. In introducing the legislation, the Minister pointed out that the Government seek to make the planning system simpler and quicker, aims which we support. However, we believe that the proposals risk achieving the opposite outcomes. This legislation will unleash regional spatial strategies, local development schemes, local development frameworks, local development documents, action area plans, simplified planning zones and statements of community involvement. How will all these plans and schemes, with their different timetables, consultations, inspections and appeals, make the system more transparent or streamlined? This level of complexity and fragmentation will accelerate public disenchantment with the system. It will lead to uncertainty, delay and planning by appeal. However, it is interesting to note that the Government are to spare Wales these problems by introducing a much simpler system than that for England.
We will table amendments in Committee that will make the planning system more efficient. I hope that the Government will give those amendments the serious consideration they deserve.
We certainly support the intention to aid business by speeding up the planning process and introducing more predictability into development control, but we do not agree that statements of development principles will offer more legal certainty than outline planning permission. In Committee we shall seek an explanation from the Minister on how these statements of development principles will provide more certainty rather than less.
We are also concerned that the Bill is silent on how local authorities are to pay for compulsory purchases in the new system. We shall seek clarification from the Government on this issue.
As the Minister commented in his opening speech, only a couple of weeks ago the Government published their White Paper on aviation which proposed, among other things, a second runway at Stansted in Essex. I should be interested to hear the Minister's comments on whether it would be possible to stop the further expansion of Stansted by proving that it does not comply with Clause 38 of this Bill covering sustainable development. I look forward to his comments on that point.
In Committee we shall want to give very detailed consideration to the Government's proposals for major infrastructure projects. While I accept that the proposals are a big improvement on those in the White Paper, at the moment they are far too widely drawn. They give the Secretary of State discretion on when he can intervene and are unclear on the process for involving local people and local planning authorities. We shall certainly wish to return to these matters at a later stage.
As I promised at the start of my speech, there are some things in the Bill that we can welcome. We welcome the proposals to eliminate "twin-tracking"—repeat and multiple applications—on which the Minister commented. We agree that sustainable

107
development must be a key ingredient in planning decisions, although we will table amendments that will enforce this requirement more robustly.
In the spirit of constructive engagement, we would like to help the Government pass a law that strengthens planning in this country by addressing the stresses in the current system. It is vital to tackle the real problems that we all recognise, such as poor quality development, red tape, delay and uncertainty. However, the Government will not remedy the situation with the Bill before us today. It ignores the advice of the practitioners and the wishes of ordinary voters. It steamrollers the planning system into a regional straitjacket. It will bring huge transitional costs that outweigh any potential benefits. It will undermine public confidence in the system. Unamended, it will lead to a weaker, slower and more complicated planning system that is less accessible and less accountable than the one we have at present.
I look forward to hearing the views of noble Lords.
4.35 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, with a Bill of this size, it is difficult to know where to start in order to get your brain around it. Should one read it straight through from the Title to, I think, page 145? Should one start with the kindergarten version set out in the Explanatory Notes, or with the briefings which pour in from interested organisations, or go and make a cup of tea? I read through Part 1 and found quite a few references to the Secretary of State. I thought, "here we go again", and while making the by then much-needed cup of tea, wondered about three particular points.
First, if this Bill has its genesis in assisting business—that was the aim set out in the Green Paper, although I accept that we have moved on somewhat—does it in fact do so? Secondly, if it is to have a role in increasing citizens' and community engagement, will it have a positive or negative effect? Thirdly, if sustainability is about the economy, business, social and community matters, and the environment, how does it knit all those together? While there are no cups of tea available in the Chamber, I thank the Minister for his explanation and for getting us started. Further, I should declare two interests: first, I am a vice-president of the Town and Country Planning Association; and, secondly, I am a member of the London Assembly, which scrutinises the Mayor of London as he exercises his planning functions.
Because I want to be constructive, I shall start by saying that we welcome some aspects of this Bill, among them the provisions on Crown immunity, compulsory purchase, the grant-making powers to support planning aid and so forth which the Minister mentioned in his remarks. However, on other provisions we would like to see the Government go further and be more clear, in particular as regards the "soup" of provisions on development and the role of sustainability. However, I readily acknowledge that none of this is easy territory.
108
But I should say clearly that our welcome is not enough for the Minister to be able to say that he is glad that we "support the Bill", because we do not. We do not do so because of the transfer of powers from elected county councils and principal local authorities up to a regional tier which is as yet unelected and which in some areas is unlikely to be elected without boundary changes. That is a pity because we see an important role for regional and, indeed, sub-regional planning. However, on reading only as far as the second subsection of Clause 1, one finds that the regional spatial strategy must set out the policies of the Secretary of State.
Further, although we may be making assumptions about which bodies will be "recognised" as regional planning bodies—those which are to keep the regional spatial strategy under review and prepare draft revisions—nothing in the Bill makes clear the criteria which a body must satisfy for such recognition. To put it another way: what are the criteria for the criteria which the Secretary of State can prescribe for that recognition? That reminds me a little of the establishment of the Government Offices for the Regions by the previous government. That was initially hailed by some—far too uncritically, I thought—as an act of devolution, but it was not.
In Committee we shall address several of the topics already referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, in particular about how at the least we can give a role in planning to the counties. They provide a great resource and are important brokers in this area. My noble friends Lady Scott of Needham Market and Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer cannot be here today, but they will want to take part in that debate, as will my noble friend Lord Bradshaw. All three will bring their knowledge to that debate, and therefore the Minister will not be surprised to see an amendment from these Benches to the effect that the regional provisions should not kick in until there is a directly elected regional body.
Perhaps not today, but certainly in previous debates in another place, the Government have emphasised what they call the "front loading" of the system; that is, the establishment of a framework which has general support and within which applications can be considered. That notion is undoubtedly a good one but we have had a plan-led system for a decade and more.
I would not begin to oppose a requirement being placed on a local planning authority to prepare a statement of community involvement. However, if that is right at local level why is it not also right at regional level for the regional spatial strategy? How far is it possible to legislate for successful community involvement, where culture and attitude are most important? I hope that through the clause we can find ways of strengthening the requirement.
While we are doing so, perhaps we can ask the Plain English Campaign to translate Clause 17 for public and community consumption in order that the hierarchy of documents and the role of the community are rather less opaque than they are expressed in the Bill. I do not know whether the Bill is so opaque in order to make it legally watertight, but it is difficult to follow.

109
This is important because public confidence in the planning system and trust in the politicians who deliver it is at stake here. We are not starting with a blank sheet. One matter which currently brings the system into a good deal of disrepute is what people see as a feeble attitude to enforcement. I know that the Government are consulting on that issue at the moment. I was interested in a suggestion from an authority of which I used to be a member that where there is unauthorised development the local planning authority should be able to serve notice that it is unlawful and enter it on the local land charges register until it is dealt with. This may be by way of a retrospective application being passed, but such an application should attract a higher fee.
That is perhaps a deviation from what I wish to say, but the Bill could do a great deal to demystify planning and involve citizens—or, if we are not careful, it could add to the problems. The Bill could also do a great deal to bolster the autonomy and discretion of local planning authorities and the roles of politicians and communities in expressing their views on what kind of place theirs should be—or, again, it might not.
Inevitably people are stirred up more by particular applications than by a plan and I wonder whether the proposed statements of development principles will be of any use. They will not be adequate for financing for investors and developers, unlike outline planning permissions which can co-exist with them. They certainly will not be of any use in large schemes of regeneration. They are likely to be too simplistic and will not be as detailed as a site brief. They could result in a considerable extra workload for stretched planning departments, as we have already heard.
I have approached crabwise an issue which should be at the start and/or the heart of the Bill—although the Bill also approaches it crabwise—and that is the role of sustainable development. The duty on authorities is to exercise functions,
"with a view to contributing to the achievement of sustainable development".
We on these Benches want there to be a far more robust duty. If there is not to be a definition of "sustainable development"—I take the point that society's understanding of the term continues to develop—there should at least be a clear indication of its elements, with an opportunity for adding to them later.
That might set the context for sorting out the relationship between a regional spatial strategy and other regional strategies, an argument rehearsed during the passage of the Regional Development Agencies Bill. I thought then—and I still do—that the spatial strategy should be the senior one.
"Sustainability" includes a variety of matters. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rogers of Riverside, will be able to share with the House his views about the need for good quality design of more than individual buildings. One aspect concerns access in its widest sense. This is not only a case of amending Section 76 of the 1990 Act—although the Bill provides an opportunity to do so—but also of taking on board the notion that if individuals with a disability are
110
excluded, not only are they disadvantaged but so is the whole of society by marginalising them. I am sure that we shall spend some time on what we mean by "sustainable development" and the valid object of planning.
We shall also spend some time discussing on what it is valid to spend the money which is paid through the new contributions system. I do not have time today to raise the concerns that have been expressed about whether the new system might prejudice the achievement of affordable housing. I hope that other speakers will allude to that. We support the provisions for contributions but we are concerned about their detail and the need for transparency and certainty. In particular we are concerned about the linkage between contributions and the triggering development. Such contributions should be seen not as a nice little revenue earner triggered by a development, but as unrelated to it. We are not talking about a betterment levy or development land tax.
There is a great deal that I have been unable to mention, but I should at least express disappointment that the Bill does not provide for at least a limited third party right of appeal—for instance, when there is to be a departure from the local plan. We do not get many opportunities to legislate on the planning system. When we are distilling down a system which aims, however complicatedly, to produce public confidence, the issue of the right of appeal should certainly be debated.
In Committee we shall address far more issues than we can cover today. Some may be of merely academic interest to some people but may be of real interest to those affected. For example, my noble friend Lord Avebury has a great concern about whether the new strategy will provide scope for setting targets for accommodation for travellers.
I hope that the issue of simplified planning zones will never be of anything more than academic interest to anyone. I dismiss it with that comment.
On a point that is not academic, in June last year, the Minister, Mr McNulty, said that he expected the new system to be up and running by June 2004. I am sure many people outside the Chamber would be interested in the current estimated time of arrival of the new provisions. I should be grateful if the Minister could help me on that issue.
I have said that we have a rooted objection to what the Minister calls a step change—I have written down what the Deputy Prime Minister might call it—towards devolution. We see this as too much of a centralising measure. We want a system which is speedier—although, like many others, our focus remains on quality—and simpler for both local planning authorities and communities; one which makes it easier to react to changing circumstances and to deliver incremental change. Whether it improves the morale and expertise of planners and councillors, as the Minister said, will perhaps be teased out over the next few weeks. We look forward to the next stage of the Bill.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, I declare an interest as a land owner in Hertfordshire. As the Minister has outlined, the Bill covers a great deal of ground, all of which we shall be addressing at the later stages.
The Bill has already had a chequered career and has been much debated and amended in another place. The aim of the Bill, we are told, is to simplify and speed up the planning process. I have tried to read and understand it but I find it an almost impenetrable jungle of bureaucratic jargon which can only further complicate and extend the already overbearing planning process.
I welcome in principle the idea of a regional involvement in strategic planning but I am far from sure that the proposals as they stand give any degree of independent thinking in the construction of the so-called regional spatial strategy. These documents, we are told in Clause 1(2), must set out the Secretary of State's policies, however expressed, and in Clause 1(4) we are told that if these policies conflict to any extent with other statements or information within the RSS,
"the conflict must be resolved in favour of the policy",
as the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, pointed out. Thus it seems that the regional spatial strategy will be a simple restatement of central government policies as expressed in the form of regional planning guidance.
What will the proposed regional planning bodies do to justify their existence? There is no specific requirement for public consultation in the creation of the regional spatial strategy. Once again, it is left to the Secretary of State to determine, by regulation, the nature and extent of consultation and participation by the public. There is, however, a right of public representation on a draft revision of the regional spatial strategy in Clause 6(2), which seems rather strange. What is more, if the Secretary of State does not like a draft revision, he may institute an examination in public at which—again, surprisingly—Clause 7(3) tells us:
"No person has a right to be heard".
To the layman, that sounds rather more like an examination in private.
If we look at the proposed functions of the regional planning bodies in Clause 3, they are required to keep under review the regional spatial strategy, derived from the Secretary of State's regional planning guidance. They must also keep under review matters that are expected to affect development in the region and the planning of that development. Note, my Lords, the words "keep under review". There is no mention of actual planning and implementation of that development. There is no mention of such major strategic planning issues as motorways, trunk roads, rail links and airports. Regional planning boards may seek assistance from their constituent local authorities, but all in all, it is hard to see from the Bill how the regional planning bodies can be anything other than glorified talking shops.
Furthermore, as the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said, it is no better at the local level. Local planning authorities have to cope with a new range of bureaucratic
112
creations. They must prepare and maintain a local development scheme which must specify the documents that are to be local development documents and those that are to be development plan documents. These must all be submitted to the Secretary of State for so-called independent examination. Once again, the Secretary of State may impose amendments with which the local planning authority has to comply. On top of all this, the local planning authority must make an annual report to the Secretary of State on the implementation of its local development scheme.
Finally, if this were not enough, each local planning authority is required to exercise its function with a view to contributing, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, pointed out, to the achievement of that ultimate, undefined planning cliché—sustainable development. It must carry out an appraisal of the sustainability of the proposals in each local development document and prepare a report of the findings of that appraisal.
I regret it, but I find it very hard to welcome these proposals. This is particularly disappointing as I strongly believe that the country is in dire need of a rethink in the planning process. The system needs to be more flexible and responsive to the needs of the country in the 21st century. There is obviously a conflict of interest between development and conservation, but it can be resolved and the planning system should be more open and proactive in seeking solutions rather than burying itself in bureaucracy.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Smith of Leigh,: My Lords, I begin by declaring a number of interests: I am leader of a local authority and of a sub-regional grouping of local authorities. I am also a member of a regional planning body that exists at the moment, and a board member of Manchester airport. I think that fulfilling those various roles qualifies me to understand the passions that can be inflamed by planning matters. I still have the scars from a number of such matters. As leader, I was once asked to move the planning permission for a landfill site; the public gallery was filled with residents who were not all that keen on having the landfill site in the area, and were using language that I may not repeat in your Lordships' House.
As a director, I, among others, was responsible for gaining planning permission for the second runway for Manchester airport. It took us three years to do so. The cost of cleaning up after those who regarded direct action as a way of opposing that proposal was well over £12 million.
I think the Government are right to bring forward this Bill to improve the planning process. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, I think the current system is deficient. It has many grave failings and needs fundamental reform.
A particular deficiency in the current system is its slowness. Whatever we do, we need a system that works effectively and efficiently because neither proponents nor opponents of developments gain by the current delays. The property of an opponent of a

113
development like the fifth terminal at Heathrow, which eventually gets through, will have been blighted for well over five years. That is not acceptable.
Planning involves change, and change, inevitably, is likely to be controversial. As former leader of Wigan borough council, I know that there is much we need to do to regenerate the local community from its industrial past, clean up derelict sites, modernise outdated infrastructure and provide housing and other social amenities fit for the 21st century. Such development may cause conflict with those more concerned with the environment or heritage matters. Community needs may conflict with individual rights. We know, for example, that supervised hostels are the best way to make sure that those released from prisons do not reoffend but, inevitably, if there is a proposal for a hostel in an area, the neighbourhood does not like it. I suspect that none of us would like it either.
The key principles that I would wish to apply to planning are that we need to make the judgments on a number of conflicting issues and that those judgments must be subject to accountability. I will return to those issues in a moment.
I was somewhat amused by the discussion on the regional dynamic of planning. There is, of course, planning guidance at the regional level. Each of the English regions currently has an assembly and the elected members of those regional assemblies are the regional planning body. When I was chair of the north-west region, I made sure that all the other partners involved in the region were engaged in our submissions for the regional planning guidance. We need to involve those stakeholders. I ask my noble friend the Minister to require the new regional planning bodies to consult more widely in preparing their regional spatial statements. Local authorities are required to produce that statement of community involvement. Why not expect the same for the new regional planning bodies?
I also welcome the clauses clarifying the contributions regarding planning gain. These contributions are somewhat controversial—they may be described in the local papers as bribery. But it is right that developers contribute to the local communities in which developments take place. Unfortunately, of course, those areas in which there is a considerable amount of development get the most. The reform is welcome. However, will my noble friend question why in Clause 46(3)(c) it is deemed necessary to have regulations to decide how authorities use the money they receive from this contribution? That seems unnecessary.
I have some concerns, which have been expressed by other noble Lords, about the presumptions in parts of the Bill about the value of the intervention by the Secretary of State. I am particularly concerned about the role and involvement of planning inspectors. They are regarded as having a valuable independent view on planning matters. That seems beneficial because it removes decision-making from local politicians. But in my experience, inspectors may be independent but that does not necessarily mean that they are objective. They may come with their own baggage of prejudices and frequently have scant regard for local needs or
114
opinions. One case of major regeneration in our area was for a new leisure complex, on a site that already had planning permission. However, it was refused by a planning inspector, although it would have produced 2,000 jobs. He did not dispute the number of jobs, but thought the quality was questionable. How can a planning inspector make decisions like that? Clause 22 effectively means that planning inspectors will have a veto on the local development frameworks. I ask my noble friend to consider whether that is really the way forward. We should let local politicians have the final say.
The involvement of the Secretary of State is mentioned in many parts of the Bill. If the power was exercised by my noble friend the Minister, I would be more sanguine about it. However, in practice, it will not be Ministers who make decisions but civil servants stuck in regional offices up and down the country. Those faceless bureaucrats have their own prejudices, and decisions to call in or not call in planning applications are often seemingly at the whim of such officials. They exercise power in the name of the Secretary of State, but I am sure that the Secretary of State is not aware of what they are up to. They have too much power and there is no transparency about what they do.
The real problem about inspectors—and to an extent about the Secretary of State in the guise of civil servants—is that they exercise judgments on planning matters without real accountability. Conflicting interests in planning are inevitable, and we need to exercise judgment about how they work in local circumstances. I do not believe that inspectors or civil servants are prepared or able to make the right decisions about those local matters. In particular, they may listen to vociferous opposition to developments, when the real weight of public opinion is the reverse. On the development to which I referred, there was vociferous opposition to a proposed development, but in political terms we fought two elections in that ward, which was highly marginal, and won convincingly both times. That is how public opinion should be properly tested.
At the end of the day, accountability for planning matters should rest with those who live in the local communities and represent people in those communities. Ultimately, the people in those communities have the final sanction, because they can use the ballot box to see whether that judgment is being exercised properly. I ask my noble friend the Minister to ensure that we do not take away from local politicians their role in and influence on local planning matters.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's characteristically open-minded approach in introducing this important Bill. I have a number of interests to declare, many of them long-standing and passionate. I am a countryman who lives and farms in Suffolk, striving to survive the agricultural recession by providing houses to let, as far as I can. I am president of Suffolk Preservation Society and of Suffolk ACRE—Action for Communities in Rural

115
England—so both the conservation and social sides of rural Suffolk are covered. I also chair Marlesford Parish Council, so I have everyday experience of planning at grass roots. I am a vice president and former chairman of the CPRE, and I was for 12 years a countryside commissioner and for eight years a rural development commissioner. I have mentioned those points because I am going to be rather critical of this Bill and I hope that the Minister will not feel that my views are wholly superficial.
The British planning system is in my view one of the two great achievements of the post-war Attlee government—the other being the National Health Service. In the planning system I certainly include the hierarchy of designations, starting with the national parks, which were invented by the Americans 50 years earlier and which we adopted in 1948. I also include the other forms of designation in the hierarchy, such as areas of outstanding natural beauty. None of that would have happened without years of campaigning. Two of the founding fathers were the architect Clough Williams-Ellis and the great town planner, Professor Patrick Abercrombie. I suppose that in some ways the whole thing started in 1928 with the publication by Clough Williams-Ellis of his book, England and the Octopus, in which he pointed out the horrific way in which ribbon development and all the other horrors were destroying the country. I fear that some aspects of the Bill might make him turn in his grave.
At any rate, those founding fathers showed us the way and persuaded the country to take it. It was taken just in time, and that is why England has so much rural beauty to be enjoyed equally by those who live in the countryside and those who live in our urban areas. It is a tragedy that, in the early years after the war, the same effort was not made with urban areas as with rural areas, giving priority to the preservation and enhancement of our inner cities. In a sense, I always feel that the "new towns" policy was something of a cop out, as several of them were pale imitations of the achievements of those who set out our garden cities, such as Welwyn Garden City. The inner city planning failure has contributed to many of our urban social problems.
I mention that now because I notice that only yesterday a decision was made to set out a new partnership for the expansion of Milton Keynes. I hope that that is not just another opt-out from a proper urban renewal policy. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, deals with that matter.
The Bill relates to some of the most precious elements of our national heritage. Sadly, it has had nothing like the priority and consideration that it deserved in another place. In spite of valiant efforts by my honourable friend Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, it was subjected to the cruel, but nowadays by no means unusual, punishment of the guillotine. The original Bill had its Second Reading on 17 December 2002, which I have read and am sure that other noble Lords have read. Following a rushed Committee stage, in which only 30 out of 90 clauses were discussed, the Bill was in effect withdrawn for drastic reshaping and did
116
not reappear in Committee until October last year. Again there was inadequate consideration, with only eight days allowed of the 12 asked for. As a result, only half of the clauses and none of the schedules were given proper consideration.
Mr Keith Hill, the housing Minister, took only two minutes to introduce the Bill at Third Reading, in a debate which took less than an hour, but he ended with the words,
"we now commend it to the other House, where I hope that it will receive a fair and impartial hearing from both sides".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/12/03; col. 969.]
I hope that we can all join in assuring him that it will, and that—thank goodness—that full consideration will be without the blade of the guillotine hanging over us. We should regard it to some extent as a fresh and undigested Bill, full of fault, but with some virtues as well, and we must do our best to send it back to the Commons in a form of which we, and the Government, can be proud.
Many major points in the Bill have been referred to, and will be; I shall mention only four. First, I believe that the whole concept of moving strategic planning from county to regional level is flawed. Not only must it mean that such plans will be made by people who are remote from the feeling of those who actually live and work in those areas—whether urban or not—and who often have little empathy and perhaps less sympathy with them, but it is another blow—I hope not a consciously aimed blow—at the sense of identity that people have with their counties.
With diffidence, almost as a commentator on politics, I would, if I may, give a political warning to the Government. They hold many rural seats in Parliament. They cannot afford to lose them if they hope to form a working majority in the next Parliament. They have already lost much sympathy from the agricultural community. If they are seen, with this Bill in its present form, to be seeking to destroy the English county and to replace it with a remote, amorphous, bureaucratic regional entity, I think they will reap a whirlwind of alienation from the electorate.
Secondly, the idea that planning decisions can be made by remote bodies such as regional assemblies, whether appointed or elected, is itself unsound. The Minister reminded us that, not very long ago, the Government considered giving Parliament a giant planning role and responsibility for considering major projects such as airports. Luckily, the Minister in particular, and his Secretary of State, the Deputy Prime Minister, realised that Parliament is wholly unsuited to such a role. It was one thing for Parliament in the 19th century and before to consider enclosure Bills and private railway Bills, but today the rural areas are far more fragile and need the best technical skills to be combined with accountable local democracy to get the right answers.
The Bill appears to offer a complicated regional structure of regional development agencies to promote economic prosperity, and regional planning panels to produce this regional spatial strategy—which I think is a relatively new phrase and, rather like "sustainable

117
development", might benefit from more definition. Presumably, as we have heard, when there is a conflict, it will always be the Secretary of State who steps in.
The third point I have to make, to which the Minister referred in his opening speech, is that, as we are all aware, much of the devil in planning is in the detail. A great deal of that will be in the subordinate legislation, including for this purpose not only regulations and Orders in Council, but also the crucial planning policies.
It is of some significance that the old PPGs—planning policy guidance—are being replaced by PPSs. Planning guidance is to give way to planning statements. The PPSs are therefore even more crucial than the PPGs were, and yet we still do not have even the draft of PPS1, which is meant to set out the general policy and principles. The draft of PPS7—the old PPG7—which is crucial particularly to rural areas, omits the important phrase:
"The countryside should be safeguarded for its own sake".
That phrase, as I am sure the Minister knows, originated with the late Nicholas Ridley when he was Environment Secretary. He was quite a laissez-faire figure in politics, and he certainly believed in market forces. If he could be persuaded to coin a phrase like that, surely the Government must be asked—perhaps we can do it in this House—to put something just as strong in its place.
Fourthly, there is a real concern that some of our special landscapes could be threatened by other economic policies, such as those advocated by a combination of central government policy and the regional development agencies. I will give just one small example—the highly controversial subject of wind farms. The present generation of wind turbines are over 300 feet high and yet produce only 2 megawatts of electricity each. A nuclear power station near where I live, Sizewell B, has an output of 1,200 megawatts and so is the equivalent of 600 of the 300-foot towers. Which is the more intrusive in environmental terms? Yet there are current proposals to surround, and to dominate visually, the entire Lake District National Park with wind turbines. Wordsworth, too, might be turning in his grave.
We cannot allow these designated areas to be eroded and threatened. Only today I saw in the press that the Deputy Prime Minister is considering taking powers to overturn the local government designation of conservation area—it is quite an old designation and has been in use for many years—on the grounds that that can interfere with the full use of his housing policies. That, of course, is precisely what such designations were intended for.
From my days as a Lobby correspondent I have admired the heroic qualities of Mr Prescott. However, I am beginning to fear that at any rate in planning and environmental matters he is somewhat out of his depth. In the ruthless pursuit of his policies he appears to be modelling himself on Lord Beaverbrook's activities as wartime Minister of aircraft production in
118
building Spitfires for the Battle of Britain. I fear that Mr Prescott is the right person in the wrong place at the wrong time.
However, I am comforted by one thing. With the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in charge of this Bill, we have no mouthpiece Minister. He is a robust and innovative political performer. I hope that he may add to his great "battle honour" of the "Rooker-Wise amendment", the radical improvement of this legislation.
5.16 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I should begin by declaring an interest as an Oxfordshire county councillor. I shall refer mainly to the duties of county councillors. They constitute a nucleus of highly trained planning staff. They are people of whom the country is desperately short.
When the Statement was made on the White Paper I asked what the Government proposed to do about the shortage of planning staff. The number of people entering higher education institutions to seek planning qualifications is desperately low. Unless professional staff come along, there really is no hope of regional government undertaking the work that is envisaged within regional spatial strategies. The existing county council staff will exercise their right either to work elsewhere in the county council or to leave the service altogether.
I speak for an area of the country that is affected by this matter. Staff in Oxfordshire will certainly not go to Guildford which is the most expensive place in the southeast in which to live. There is a real crisis if the Government think that these people can move. The same mistake was made in the National Health Service when local hospitals closed. Accountants assumed that staff would transfer. However, in my part of the world those staff almost universally left the health service when local facilities were closed. I warn the Minister that this is a real problem, not some fanciful suggestion on the part of opponents. Staffing the relevant offices will be extremely difficult. From my experience of the railways I assure the Minister that the alternative of hiring consultants to do the work is incredibly expensive and does not constitute joined-up working. The people concerned have no commitment to the work and one faces enormous difficulties if one tries to do that. I should like the Minister to comment on staffing and staff training.
The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, made reference to the democratic deficit if a transfer occurs away from the counties to unelected regional offices. We feel extremely strongly about that. We are not against regional government but we are certainly against unelected regional government and regional government that draws its powers not from the centre but from the layer of local government below it. So far as I can see from reading the Bill, that is what will happen. The Bill takes power from the county but not from the centre. That is a serious flaw.
We shall move amendments to ask that the counties should be statutorily involved in any regional strategy drawn up, and that their place be written very strongly

119
into the Bill. In view of the successes that have occurred among social services in terms of counties being enforced to have directors of children's services, we think planning such an important matter that the people in charge in counties should be accorded a little more status than at present. They are making decisions that cost hundreds of millions of pounds and that affect the lives of very many people.
I am speaking about such matters because they are the practical realities of life on the council. I know very well that if decisions are sucked away from Oxfordshire and placed in Guildford—I am sure that it is true all around the country—the local representatives will feel that they have been stripped of something important. It is something about which they are prepared to argue with the electors, but they will not argue on behalf of some body that is totally unrepresentative of them. There is an enormous problem with stakeholder involvement if decision-making is taken away from where it is done now.
So far as I can tell, most counties are not behindhand with planning. In Oxfordshire, we are working on the structure plan for 2016, so we are not miles behind or causing delays. The delays are caused elsewhere in the system. In my experience, most delays are in getting decisions when documents are submitted to the Secretary of State or his regional offices for their opinion.
The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, referred to whether inspectors' decisions should be final. Quite honestly, we have the most bizarre decisions, which I am sure are sometimes made because some of the inspectors are not very good. One can tell that when one makes an application. With the Oxford transport strategy, we actually picked the inspector whom we wanted and waited until he was available. The decisions of inspectors vary very substantially. Unless the inspectors have some God-given power of absolute and total independence, I would much rather face the electors and local media myself than shelter behind a decision made on my behalf by an inspector who probably never faces anyone very much except the few people who bother to turn up at public inquiries.
The Minister mentioned that an amendment had been made on sustainability. Are the Government now satisfied that the definition of sustainability—it is at present in Clause 38—has actually been tested, thought about legally and will stand up to the legal pressure under which it will no doubt come?
My noble friend Lady Hamwee touched on third-party appeals. There are certainly disadvantages in them, and perhaps they are overemphasised. However, where a person is directly affected and where the challenge is on some point of law, the matter should be reconsidered. I am not asking for a licence for lobby groups to restate their case again and again, but where someone is actually the owner of land or is very closely affected and thinks that the law has been misinterpreted, there may be a case for that person to have the opportunity of making a third-party appeal.
Mention has been made of Section 106 agreements—planning obligations. Some people have referred to them as blackmail, but they are not in my experience.
120
Developers sometimes may not like them, but that is perfectly reasonable. Will the Minister balance the fact that the local authority needs to use Section 106 agreements to put infrastructure in place—roads, schools, hospitals—to meet the needs of the community? At the same time, developers are being asked increasingly to provide up to 50 per cent of affordable housing within a development. The Government are now asking too much of the system. It will not be able to produce the infrastructure that is required and the affordable housing that the Government and others say they need. We must ensure that we are not overloading the system and some part of some funds must obviously come from somewhere else.
Enforcement is mentioned in the Bill. I had discussions with the principal planning officer of our county this morning. He said that enforcement is a tortuous process that takes years to have effect; the fines are derisory; people have often made millions in the meanwhile; and, as I have experienced myself, have been known to go bankrupt so that one is unable anyway to collect the money for the derisory fine. Will the Minister consider in some circumstances making enforcement a criminal offence? I am sure that the threat of prison would be much more real in the minds of some people who are taking a calculated risk. They will pay the £5,000 or £10,000 fine when it comes along as part of their business expenses, whereas a period as a guest of Her Majesty might have a different effect.
Another problem that we have in Oxfordshire is sub-division of agricultural land. I believe it is a problem that is growing in some parts of the country, where speculators are selling fields and then dividing them into small sections. That is thoroughly objectionable; it serves no purpose; is entirely speculative and leads to the land looking awful. I hope the Minister will address that.
Many issues can be addressed, but I return to the final one. We are very concerned about the effect of the Bill on counties and on small counties that might be bullied by their larger neighbours or bullied in the interests of larger neighbours that have a much greater voice on the regional authority. We are certainly concerned about the democratic deficit.
5.28 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, for anyone who is interested in how we use our land and especially how we control—perhaps mediate is a better word—the pressures on our countryside, this is an important Bill.
There are some good things in it. There are important measures, many of which have been referred to, of a tidying-up nature, dealing with practical abuses of the development control process; for example "twin tracking", repeat applications and, separately, Crown immunity. Although one would assume that speeding things up was a good thing, the Explanatory Notes seem to suggest that that is the main purpose of the Bill. Indeed, they indicate that the purpose of the Bill relates to:
"speeding up the planning system".

121
That is putting the matter rather strongly. There is also, after a good deal of pressure, the inclusion of the phrase:
"sustainable development as an objective".
Clause 38 does not tell us very much about what that means, and I shall wait with interest to learn from the Government what they have in mind. No doubt they will be able to change the definition when they are so minded.
While, as I said, there are some good, practical things in the Bill, I believe that its main thrust is deeply worrying. In essence, it is a key measure in promoting the Government's regional agenda. The key planning process—the RSS—will be carried out by each regional planning body, for which read the "regional development agency", as prescribed by, and under the beady eye of, the Secretary of State.
The structure planning system is to be abolished and the county councils are to be deliberately sidelined. Indeed, an RPB is required to seek assistance from a county council and so on only if it considers that it would be "desirable". I believe that that is rather a weak word. I very much agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that this is an area where we must strengthen the Bill.
That and other measures in the Bill mean that the slow but steady evolution of our planning system from the seminal legislation of the 1940s —the carefully constructed system of checks and balances—is to be pushed aside. As I said. that is rather worrying.
Regionalism versus structure planning at a county council level will be the first main theme of my remarks. I shall touch on two other topics: namely, the role and status of national parks and, secondly, third-party rights of appeal. I shall not seek to cover the immensely complicated processes proposed for local development control. It seems likely, for example, that local plans will be extremely thin documents. Perhaps that is what the Government want, but does it make for good planning?
Then there are the other complicated issues which have also been mentioned: the Section 106 proposals or those to deal with compulsory acquisition, and so on. However, I shall listen with interest, as I have done already, to what noble Lords have said or will say on those matters.
I return to the central issue: regions versus county councils or unitary authorities. The objections to the proposals are so many and have been gone over by, I believe, almost every single speaker thus far that I shall be rather telegraphic. First, few people in England identify with a particular region. To the extent that we have them, they are an administrative construct. But people do relate to counties, and county councils are elected.
Secondly, moreover, to date we have no regional assemblies. If we were to have them, we have no idea how they would operate or what their powers would be and so forth. Thirdly, therefore, to put the key element of the proposed planning regime on regions which do not exist is to put the cart before the horse, or perhaps the metaphor is that the tail will be wagging the dog.
122
Fourthly, we are therefore asked in the mean time to rely on regional development agencies. The membership of their boards is appointed by the Government and members have a mostly business or urban background. By all accounts, they are flush with funds. Typically, only one member has rural expertise or a rural background. Inevitably, urban considerations will dominate countryside considerations and tensions will build up.
Fifthly, our existing structures of separate county councils and urban unitary authorities are understood, have evolved and are democratic and they avoid the town-versus-country issue. Sixthly —this point has been made by a number of speakers—most planning experts believe that the gap created by the abolition of structure plans will be too great; that is, the gap between the RSS and the local plans will he too large for good planning. The county council is a far better level for strategic planning.
Seventhly, work commissioned by the Local Government Association showed hugely negative support for these proposals. I shall quote two short examples from the surveys that were carried out:
"76 per cent of authorities said County Councils should have a statutory role in preparing regional strategies and 80 per cent said they should retain a role on such regional strategies; 95 per cent believe it will not be easy for Regional Planning Bodies to secure meaningful community involvement in regional planning".
Eighthly, how, it may reasonably be asked, are these proposals to be resourced? That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and I think others. There is already a shortage of planners. But the county councils will still need their planners if they are to maintain their other functions. Moreover—and it seems a little bizarre—they are to continue to be in charge of transport, minerals and waste planning.
The second matter I raise is the role and status of national parks. I declare an interest as the vice-president of the Council for National Parks. It seems to me that the statutory purposes, and with that the national role, of national parks, is in no way fully recognised. They are lumped together—I refer to Clause 4(2)—with county councils, metropolitan councils and district councils as a job lot of bodies whose role is to be reduced. Their national status is not recognised. In that connection I draw attention to Section 62 of the Environment Act 1995.
Everything I have said about the dumbing down of county councils applies with even greater force to our national parks. If the word "national" is to mean anything, then each part must be solely responsible for the strategic planning in its area. To put matters crudely: it must not be dominated by a bunch of businessmen at an RDA. That is a real danger. It will be an insidious danger too because in developing the park, probably in the name of tourism, we shall end up by damaging—perhaps irreparably—the special qualities which have made it a national park.
I believe it follows from that that each national park authority (NPA) must be properly represented at the regional level. If, faute du mieux, we are to be saddled with this regional superstructure, an NPA must be able,

123
and I would argue has a statutory duty, to argue the national considerations at the regional level. The idea of sustainable development will also be particularly important in the national park context.
In the same connection, striking the right balance between economic development and environmental quality will be a key factor in strategic management. We would, I suggest, do well to study the thinking of the National Trust. I am happy to declare an interest as a former chairman. I am very happy to see the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, in his place this afternoon. He is a former chairman too. The National Trust's experience in this respect is unrivalled, as is the thinking of people such as Mr John Dunning. He is a member of the North West RDA and has much of interest to say on the subject.
Before I move on, I must say a few words on AONBs. There is nothing in the Bill about them. There is nothing about AONB conservation boards. One is left to wonder whether this is the same Government today that passed the CROW Act only three years ago. Broadly speaking, AONBs, which under the 1949 Act are areas that have the same landscape qualities and value as a national park, need similar but appropriate treatment in the Bill.
The last point I wish to raise is the omission of any measure for third party rights of appeal. Again, one or two noble Lords have raised the issue. There have been repeated representations and notably a major report commissioned by eight highly responsible environmental organisations. Some fairly trenchant comments were also made by the House of Commons Select Committee. Yet the Government continue to resist even limited rights. At the same time they state in the Green Paper, and they have continued to reiterate the theme:
"We need a planning system that fully engages people in shaping the future of their communities and local economies".
It is not good enough. Not to be allowed to challenge, for example, a planning permission that is clearly contrary to the local plan or where a favourable decision is in respect of the authority itself is simply unfair and unjust. The whole planning appeal process is in any case weighted heavily in favour of the developer. I ask the Government to reconsider, or at least to do us the courtesy of advancing a rational argument not based on the need for a speedy process.
Planning has been described as a mediating process for dispute resolution. It has been developing over the years, following the landmark legislation of the Attlee administration, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and by the typically British process of evolution, but the main thrust of the Bill does not take us down that well trodden route. Its tendency is towards centralising, not towards sub-regions. It over-emphasises the desirability of speed at the expense of openness and fairness. It is sad that it falls to a later Labour Government to abandon a process that has served so well.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, whose great experience of the matter, like that of so many other noble Lords who have spoken, I cannot hope to match. I agree with virtually everything that he said; in that regard, I suppose that I ought to declare an interest as living in an area of outstanding natural beauty.
I am not surprised to find that when our planning system is compared knowledgeably with that of other developed countries, it comes out as one of the best, if not the best. I agree with what has been said about the great achievement of the Attlee government in the famous 1947 Act. It follows from that that we must regard it as a precious attribute of the country and be extremely cautious, although not timid, when we address perceived defects. It is also remarkable that we can claim it to be the best notwithstanding its inbuilt capacity to frustrate certain people.
In a small country such as ours, whose undeveloped land is, as the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said, such a precious amenity to the life of almost everyone, it is essential that the necessary power to control the use of land should be shared—and democratically shared at that. In the sharing of that power, many people are bound to experience frustration from time to time. For the greater good, there will on occasion be a need to make them suffer frustration; but they will wear that if the decision that occasions it is democratically fair and taken at a reasonably local level. If it is not, the degree of public acceptance of, and therefore of compliance with, the planning decision will be entirely different.
It is rather fashionable for people unfavourably to compare with the French system the time it takes here to get consent to a major infrastructure proposal, for example. My answer to that is that with the French system goes an authoritarian attitude at all levels that could be called cavalier, if that were not to be unfair to Cavaliers. We would not and should not wear that in England; and my real fear is that the Bill may provide the Government with an opportunity to learn that lesson the hard way.
Those reflections—which, I fear, are not especially original—lead to my justification for adding to the list of speakers. What is proposed in the Bill in substitution for the county councils' present jurisdiction to make structure plans will add to the frustration and diminish the democracy. It is seriously undemocratic and remote from the areas that it will affect.
I invite your Lordships to consider the south-eastern region. To begin with, the proposed assembly, which will to a great extent assume the jurisdiction of the county councils, will draw its members from North Oxfordshire in the north to Thanet in the south-east, while skirting everything included in Greater London. It is not easy to imagine a less homogeneous area—it is more of a hotchpotch—for decision-makers to control when they are invested with the jurisdiction to make nominally regional decisions and nominally regional, strategic, spatial strategies, while local development frameworks, put forward by truly local bodies, are obliged to conform to them.

125
How should deprived Thanet, for example, in east Kent, be expected to conform to what is apt for the M4 corridor or indeed for Oxford? I listened with much admiration to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. That is only the beginning of it. Who are those decision-makers to be? Why, for the present, they will be the officials who comprise the regional chambers. None of them will be elected for that purpose. Their numbers will inevitably burgeon and their regional spatial strategy will have to comply with or, to use the words of Clause 1, to "set out" the policies of the Secretary of State, however expressed. They will exercise that statutory jurisdiction in place of the locally elected county councils for an indefinite time—at least as long as it may take the Government to enact their regional assemblies legislation. I say "at least as long" because— yes, it really does get worse—a referendum under that Bill could perfectly possibly result in a "no, thank you" answer from the electorate, declining an elected assembly in the south-east. I fervently trust that that is what will happen, because I judge that we are pretty happy with our county councils. In that event, the undemocratic set-up that I have tried to describe will indeed last indefinitely.
Ministers will doubtlessly retort—we may hear it tonight— by urging us to vote "yes" in our referendum if we do not like it. That, of course, is their intention. However, I suggest to your Lordships that that would be a shocking misuse of power, for the question whether a region is to be saddled with an unelected assembly should surely stand alone. It cannot fairly be presented, or represented, as a question, when the structure plans that it will supersede will already have been taken away. The icing on that unwholesome cake is provided by calling it "devolution". We shall certainly come back to the issue.
It is important to be fair and therefore to take heed of the fact that Ministers can indeed remark on the failure of some local authorities in some circumstances to meet their planning targets. That is said to be evidence of a failing system. So it is, but the fault for the failure in Kent, for example, is that of central government and not of local government. I take Kent to be an illustration; I do not believe it to be unique. In Kent, a land bank has been allocated for development sufficient to meet the needs of the next nine years. I understand that the reason why Kent has been able to build only 75 per cent of its allocation each year in the north Thames Gateway lies in the failure of central government to fund the necessary infrastructure, such as road junctions, schools and libraries. Therefore, the reason does not lie in the deficiencies of the planning system; and I will be surprised if that is a unique experience.
I conclude by joining virtually all other noble Lords in pointing out that there are indeed good things in the Bill. I have already cited two examples. The first is the Bill's nailing of the abuse of repetitious applications. That is important. The second is putting a stop to Crown land immunity from the planning processes. We all recognise that.
126
However, first, the Bill's impact on local democracy and local ownership of planning decisions, and, secondly, the vast accretion of power to the Secretary of State, to say nothing of the complexity of many of the provisions, cumulatively amount to a very serious and retrograde feature of the legislation. I very much hope that we will be able to diminish that.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, like the two previous speakers and other noble Lords, I wish to start by saying that I believe that the planning system in this country over the past half-century, warts and all, has been a huge success. The suggestion that the planning system is bust and must be reformed thoroughly from top to bottom is fundamentally wrong. One need only compare this country with others, many of which have far fewer planning problems than we have—we are far more densely populated and have a much greater variety of landscape than many countries.
In the 1930s, when much of the pressure for a planning system was building up, ribbon development was a key factor in making people realise that an efficient planning system was needed. If that had not happened and ribbon development had continued for the past 50 years, every main road and country lane in this country would have a row of houses along it. Imagine how that would be. One need only think about what this country would be like had the planning system not existed. Noble Lords talked about the national parks. Let us take for example the Lake District and the development that there would have been in Langdale, Borrowdale and all its other valleys—and probably, in some cases, on top of mountains—if it had been allowed. It is obvious that planning has served this country well. That is not to say that some changes and reforms should not take place.
Unlike my noble friends, I am no longer directly involved in local authorities so I have no interest to declare. However, I spent 25 years as a member of local planning authorities, and my expertise in planning is due to my having been at the coalface. Recently, for example, I spent several years as chairman of various development control sub-committees and committees. I have, therefore, local experience of planning.
My first huge question on the Bill is: why are the Government centralising power in this apparently drastic way? In particular, why are they taking structure planning powers to a regional level? There may be elected regional assemblies in some parts of England in the fairly near future. I doubt that it will happen in the north-west—although it may—and it certainly will not happen in most regions. We are faced with half the planning system that rests with local authorities at present going to a regional level. Even in a region such as the north-west, that is a step too far.
I cannot understand from reading the Bill and the Explanatory Notes what will happen in the existing unitary authorities. What will happen to existing structure plans in the mean time? Who will look after them? Once the Bill is passed, who will be responsible

127
for defending the policies in structure plans at local public inquiries, for example? Will that happen at the new regional level? Will the structure plan form part of the interim regional spatial strategy, along with the regional planning guidance? How will that work? There seems to be a big question mark over that.
Presumably, parts of the planning process in unitary authorities that represent the county level of a structure planning system in two-tier systems will also go to the regional level. What is the process by which unitary authorities will be stripped of half their planning powers? In the mean time, what will happen to unitary development plans, half of which will no longer be the responsibility of the authority that set them up? For obvious reasons, a lot of the debate is about counties in two-tier structures, but the problems and the complications that will occur in existing unitary authorities are just as great, and in fact they may be greater, because an existing unitary system will be split.
The Government have said that this system will be more simplified and will lead to faster decisions. The view of local planning officers to whom I have spoken, again at the district level of development control and the district level of producing local plans, is that the new system will be more complex; that the new folder full of all these local development documents will be more time-consuming, more resource-consuming to compile than the existing local plans; and that more resources will be required. Will the Government provide those resources for local planning authorities? One planning officer told me that the Government are looking for a Rolls-Royce system, whereas at the moment they have an ordinary Ford Pop system. My concern is that by not providing the resources and the ability to produce a Rolls-Royce system, they will in fact end up with something that owes rather more to Heath Robinson than to Rolls-Royce.
Sustainable development is a wonderful thing; at least, they are two wonderful words. Everyone agrees with them, because everyone thinks they mean what they want them to mean. People who want to see a lot of economic development believe that sustainable development will lead to sustainable profits for their company; economically sustainable development. People who believe that new housing estates should be provided with schools, community centres, shops and all the rest of it believe that it is to do with socially sustainable development. Of course, a lot of people think it is to do with preserving the environment and reducing global warming and all the rest of that, in other words, environmentally sustainable development. Everyone agrees with sustainable development until they start to define it. So it is not really surprising that the Government have not put a definition in the Bill, because if we start talking about definitions, we will find that everyone thinks that it means something different. It is not good enough for the Government to say that they will issue regulations saying what this means. If we are going to pass this Bill here in this House, we want to
128
know what the Government mean by sustainable development and we need some definitions put firmly into the Bill.
I will talk about one or two local issues. The Government talk about speed in planning decisions. It has been said that this Bill is all about speed, trying to speed up the system. Even if it will do that, there is quite often a trade-off in planning decisions, between speed on the one hand and the quality of the decision on the other. When you come to complicated development decisions at local level, you often find that you can pass it quickly and virtually do what the developers are asking for, or you can spend care and time improving the proposal. If you do that, you go beyond the eight weeks and you lose marks on the government tick-list when they come along to assess your planning policy. They look at how many proposals you have passed within the timetable, and if you have not passed 75 per cent, or 80 per cent or whatever it is nowadays, they will say, "Oh, you are naughty boys and girls", and they will give you less money in future.
Nevertheless, you might be getting better development decisions, because you have taken the time and the trouble to consult outside organisations; you have taken the time and the trouble to talk to developers, to negotiate; you have taken the time and trouble to explain to local people what it is all about and to get their involvement, and if not their total agreement, at least their acquiescence that you are doing it fairly and you are looking at all the points. It is often a trade-off between speed and quality, and the Government simply do not understand that. I am not arguing for inefficiency; I am not arguing for planning departments that put things in a cupboard and do not look after them. However, it often takes time, and even on small planning applications, it often takes time to get it right.
Major or small local planning applications will continue to be there. Once development takes place, the results will be there for 20 years, 50 years or perhaps 200 years in many cases. If a development is wrong, the people of the future will suffer because it is not at least as right as it might have been. There are no total rights and wrongs in planning. It is always a matter of compromise. Therefore, as regards speed, the Government should think again about exactly how the competence of local planning authorities is to be assessed.
One of the problems that causes delays in planning is the appeals system, which is out of the control of the local authority. It is in the Government's control. But do the Government have their own tick-list about how quickly appeals should be organised and dealt with? Perhaps I may give a brief example. A planning application for 200 houses has been made by the ward that I used to represent in Colne in Pendle borough, Lancashire. I shall not talk about its merits or otherwise because it is still at appeal, but the application was made almost two years ago. It went to committee and there were a great number of delays while organisations such as the Lancashire Wildlife

129
Trust and so forth were consulted. The decision was made in 2002. The application was refused and the applicants appealed.
The local public inquiry took place last April. There was a delay in obtaining the public inquiry, which there always is. We are still waiting for a decision. That is no good for the applicants. It is no good for the residents who are objecting to the extension of the lovely new houses that have just been built on the edge of the countryside. Some people are objecting for much better reasons than that. It is no good for the local authority. It is no good for anyone. Yet that is the delay in the system, which is all down to the appeal. As far as I can determine, there is nothing in the Bill about speeding up appeals. But it is a fundamental problem, which is not fair.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am reluctant to intervene during the debate. But, first, I raised this issue in my opening speech. There is a measure in the Bill about Secretary of State call-ins and the way in which they should be dealt with. Since the noble Lord has raised the issue, perhaps I may put this on the record because it would be useful. We are not asking authorities to do things that we are not seeking to do ourselves in the department. I do not know any of the detail as regards the case mentioned by the noble Lord, but it is a thundering disgrace. Quite clearly, there is a failure of administration.
Our target is to halve the time taken from the close of an inquiry to the decision and by March 2004 to decide 80 per cent of cases within 16 weeks from the close of an inquiry. We have already delivered a 50 per cent improvement. The new planning casework division in the planning inspectorate will put in place even more effective case-management arrangements to oversee the process from beginning to end. During the first six months of the current financial year, 86 per cent of cases were decided within the relevant milestone.
We are desperately trying to clear up the mess at the centre. The kind of example that the noble Lord gave gives a bad taste to the rest of the system. But it is not true to say that there nothing in the Bill about it; there is.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for giving all those encouraging facts and figures. They do not seem to apply to us in our part of the country, but perhaps they will in future. I was not talking about applications that were called-in, I was talking about ordinary appeals. If I missed what the Minister said, I apologise for not listening carefully enough.
There is a great deal in the Bill that needs further debate. In the Minister's opening speech he said, "We listened and we continue to listen". Usually, he is a listening Minister. Sometimes he has the flexibility to meet some of the points made and sometimes he does not. We look forward to hearing his response. We hope that he is on a fairly loose rein as far as this Bill is concerned.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Best: My Lords, I declare my interests as chief executive of a housing association in York—the Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust—with links to the National Housing Federation, the Chartered Institute of Housing and the Royal Institute of British Architects, and as chief executive of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation that has produced numerous reports on housing and planning. Like the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, I, too, was a rural development commissioner for many years.
I greatly welcome the Bill's objectives of rationalising and streamlining the planning system. As the seminal interim report from Kate Barker of the Bank of England made clear last month. our Byzantine planning system is a highly significant cause of the acute housing shortages which are causing so much misery and creating so many economic problems for large parts of this country. However, I fear that even if the housebuilders, on whom we now rely for 85 per cent of all new housing, receive planning consents more easily and speedily, housing production may not grow appreciably. Indeed, if the economy falters even a little, housebuilders' production may decline even if planning is streamlined.
Despite phenomenal house price increases, new housebuilding today is at its lowest level for some 75 years. But that is not because of dramatic falls in the production of private developers. The output of housebuilders, decade by decade, has remained pretty constant. The extraordinary fall in the number of new homes is attributable to huge reductions in the provision of subsidised, affordable homes, now at only 10 to 20 per cent of previous levels. Instead of 20,000, at least 50,000 affordable homes are needed annually just to keep pace with the number of new households appearing each year who cannot buy outright. The deficit will be made good only by institutional investment in a new-look, private rented sector and public investment in affordable housing, mostly through the Housing Corporation.
The planning system, however, can help directly to increase the number of subsidised, affordable homes by enabling providers to secure the land they need. It does this by requiring housebuilders to ensure that a proportion of every larger site they develop must go to subsidised accommodation for key workers, for low-income households et al.
That brings me to the first of my points on ways in which the Bill might be improved. My concern here lies in the proposed change whereby the current, flawed but improvable "Section 106 agreements" that oblige builders to allocate land for affordable housing could be bypassed by housebuilders opting to pay a contribution, a tariff; that is, an indirect tax on landowners. This would mean that housebuilders would not have to allocate any part of their developments for affordable housing. Funds raised by such a tariff might not find their way into affordable housing at all, not least because housing associations or other providers of low-cost homes may find it impossible to buy the land they need elsewhere.

131
Further, even if other sites can be purchased, no doubt in the least desirable locations, it offends good practice to build segregated ghettos of social housing for poorer households rather than integrating these into mixed-income, mixed-tenure developments with renters alongside owners. Tariffs may sensibly replace requirements to include affordable homes in some areas where there is low demand for social, subsidised housing, and perhaps also at the very top end of the market, where one home for social housing could be replaced by several for the same price elsewhere. But for most of the south of England and other housing hotspots, tariffs could be a recipe for further reducing the numbers of new, affordable homes unless the tariff system is tailored with great care.
Having identified the overarching requirements as I see them both for public investment and for proactive planning in which new tariffs could prove counterproductive, perhaps I may now briefly lend support to three amendments to the Bill that I expect to be brought forward by other Members of this House.
First, the Disability Rights Commission, RADAR, the John Grooms and Habinteg housing associations, along with others, see a major role for planning in securing accessible homes and environments. I have expressed appreciation in the House for the Government's important changes to Part M of the building regulations, as well as concern that some housebuilders are failing to comply with these requirements. The Minister has initiated a review to consider what steps should be taken to enforce the existing regulations—on level front entrances, on wider doors and corridors and so on—and on whether further improvements could be made. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill could tackle these issues directly through planning requirements which would speed up progress here.
Secondly, if positive planning for sustainable new homes and communities is to get real priority at the local level, the status of planning officers must be enhanced. The Bill provides the opportunity to upgrade this role within local authorities by giving statutory recognition—not protection—to senior planning officers in the same way as their colleagues responsible for social services, education, finance and legal services are all recognised.
I would urge support for the Town and Country Planning Association and the Royal Town Planning Institute in their hopes that the Bill could give this higher status to the individual expected to take a leading role in advising councillors and the community on often difficult planning decisions.
Finally, the Bill presents the chance to make a clear, formal link between planning and housing. Housing strategies are now required of local authorities and these could be joined up with each authority's new local development plans—as advocated by the Local Government Association, the Chartered Institute of Housing and the National Housing Federation—to provide the coherent framework necessary to ensure the delivery of a much needed increase in decent, sustainable, affordable new homes.
132
I welcome the Bill but I hope that the House will improve it further.
6.12 p.m.
Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, I, too, welcome many aspects of the Bill, especially its focus on delivering sustainable development through the planning process and the renewed emphasis on community involvement. However, I fear we may be in danger of missing a huge opportunity to rectify failings in the planning system. These failings permit developments to go forward which marginalise and exclude millions of disabled and older people.
Many disabled people feel, quite rightly, that the current planning system pays scant regard to their needs. In a recent NOP survey for the Disability Rights Commission, some 73 per cent of disabled people reported major difficulties accessing vital local services and amenities due to lack of attention to accessibility in the design, orientation and location of buildings.
For example, a visually impaired youngster's mother rang the Disability Rights Commission last year complaining about the council-run leisure centre which is situated in a car park around which there are no pavements. The youngster has to walk around the edge of the car park, which puts her at risk, especially when the weather is wet, the grass is slippery and she is at risk of falling. The plans failed to make any provision for disabled people to make their way across the car park to the building. There are many more stories such as this.
The root cause is simple. As stated in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's recent good practice guidance on planning and access,
"there are still many inaccessible environments throughout the UK. In many cases this is because schemes have been granted planning consent without any party in the process properly assessing whether the scheme would result in an accessible environment".
With a major revision of the system in prospect, now must be the time to put this right.
In the past year the Government have begun to deliver on their manifesto commitments to reform the planning system in line with the recommendations made by the Disability Rights Task Force hack in 1999. In March last year the ODPM issued the good practice guidance to local authorities on strengthening consideration of disability access, as I have already mentioned. A process of revising national planning guidance is also in train, which I trust will fully reflect the views and concerns of disability organisations. However, much still remains to be done.
Most notably, the Government have an outstanding commitment to review statutory provisions in planning law on disability access. The Disability Rights Task Force recommended that the Government should consider the future role of Section 76 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which requires planning authorities to alert developers to disability access requirements on grant of permission when a suitable legislative opportunity arises. In particular, the task force

133
emphasised the need to alert developers to disability access legislation at the earliest possible opportunity in the planning process.
The task force understood that the key to creating truly inclusive environments is to incorporate accessibility and inclusive design at the very beginning of the development process, rather than expecting developers to make expensive retrospective adjustments once building is under way.
In March 2001 the Government accepted this recommendation, stating:
"We agree with the Task Force and will review section 76 when a suitable opportunity arises".
Furthermore. in the 2001 manifesto, the Government pledged to implement outstanding task force recommendations to which they had signed up. Time is now running out to fulfil this vital pledge to disabled people.
The work of reviewing Section 76 and access provisions—or the lack of them—in planning law has already been carried out. It was one of the themes of the Disability Rights Commission's first review of civil rights legislation. This legislative review was published in May last year and contains several recommendations for reform of the planning system. These included: a statutory requirement for developers to provide access statements with their applications; positive access duties within the basic planning framework; and core policies on disability access in all local development documents and regional spatial strategies. These recommendations were subject to lengthy consultation and received strong support from all stakeholders.
I understand that Ministers in another place pledged to consider using order-making powers to require developers to provide access statements with their initial application. I hope that by the time we reach detailed debate in Committee, the Government will be in a position to give further details on this and other recommendations.
In particular, I hope the Government will reconsider the advisability of relying on guidance alone to eliminate the huge inconsistencies we see between the approaches of different planning authorities. Certainly, the leading disability, housing and planning organisations, from the RNIB and RADAR through to Habinteg and the Town and Country Planning Association, are adamant that this approach simply will not work. They argue that changes to planning law are required and they seek, in particular, a specific duty on planning authorities to have due regard to the need for reasonable access for disabled people when considering planning applications.
In conclusion, it is worth emphasising that there is no conflict here with the Government's understandable desire to speed up the planning process and reduce costs through modernisation—on the contrary. Ensuring that access provisions are built in at the earliest design stage is significantly more cost-effective for developers than retrospective adjustments. Early attention to access would also mean that planning approval or building regulation consent would be unlikely to be refused on the grounds that it does not meet appropriate access
134
standards. This would minimise the potential for delay, with obvious financial benefits. Developments designed to be inclusive are likely to have an enhanced market value. Service providers will be less likely to face legal action under the Disability Discrimination Act and will be in a much better position to capitalise on the considerable spending power of disabled people, estimated at £51.3 billion per annum.
We have a unique opportunity to create a system of planning and development control that delivers environments which are more accessible for all and supports the Government's goal of more sustainable communities. I do hope we seize it.
6.19 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I started my career at 22, when I was elected to the Chailey rural district council. My village voted for me not because I had any political skills or experience but because my father was the local doctor and very popular. One of his patients even told me, "You're a bit young, dear, but I'll vote for you because you've got the doctor's eyes". I have to say that party politics were not writ very large in my village. I chaired the planning committee and later I was leader of its successor body, the Lewes district council. I was elected to the East Sussex county council and, at the same time, served on my parish council. I was a very sad case: I was a local government junkie, I was seriously addicted, and I loved it. I am telling your Lordships this because, for all its faults, I am a firm believer in local government, local democracy and local accountability.
In introducing the Bill, the Minister was rightly prophetic in saying that he anticipated concerns about the role of the county council. Many noble Lords have expressed their concerns, focusing on the lack of democracy at the strategic level. I make no apology for joining in with that chorus of concern. In the Bill, county councils will not have a statutory power to determine strategic planning. Their powers are to be exercised by non-directly elected regional bodies and regional government offices. My noble friend Lord Marlesford is absolutely right in saying that there could be a whirlwind of opposition if county councils are written out of the script.
I also find it breathtaking that the content of the draft regional spatial strategy will include the minutiae of the number of houses for each district, which will have to be approved by the Deputy Prime Minister. I cannot believe that the Deputy Prime Minister or his top officials can really have any detailed knowledge of somewhere like the Lewes area. I do not believe that they really care about the Lewes area; I do not suppose that they even know where it is—they probably think that it is in Scotland, when actually it is in Sussex.
County councils may or may not be consulted on spatial strategies. That depends entirely on the whim of the local district council, or whether the regional planning body seeks technical advice. Yet it is actually the county council that provides 80 per cent of all local authority services in my area, and plays the major role in community leadership. My fear is that, again, the

135
Government will achieve the worse outcome with what are probably the best intentions. County councils will be left with planning departments that they may or may not need to use. Do they close them, keep them or downsize them—and, if so, to what size? What priority will they give to the importance of strategic planning when there is so much strong competition, and indeed government direction, to invest in education, social services and in other statutory duties?
County councils are in fact being sidelined, but the Government do not have the guts to abolish them, except where people want regional authorities. The regional planning areas are clearly designed by those who have no sense of history or belonging. My noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew described the southeast region, where I also live. It has already been dubbed the "banana republic" because of its shape, as it bends round London from north Oxford to east Kent. I am sure that the inhabitants of north Oxford are really delightful, but, as a resident of east Sussex, I have no sense of identity with them or with their county.
I share the fears of noble Lords about the broad-brush planning decisions that are to be made by distanced, unelected bodies that have no relationship with the people. Those people are not accountable or elected on any manifesto and, much worse, they are invisible when they are wrong. The Government may well be saying that democracy stands in the way of decisions that ought to be made, but the Government must take a strategic overview that has to be dissembled to chunks of England, with which people have no empathy.
We in the home counties try to maintain an identity, and the Bill is dismissive of that. Belonging to somewhere and taking responsibility for your surroundings and your neighbours' are all being further eroded, yet those things are the most important part of living. There is no line that can be neatly drawn between what is now spatial strategy and local affairs. One can, and does, destroy the other.
Ministers, civil servants and council officials are perpetually on the move, whereas the majority of people live close to their parents and to where they were brought up. It is those who know their area, who live in it and are elected councillors, who are of the utmost importance. They are the rock on which communities are built.
Communities are where decency and respect translate into law-abiding, thriving places, loved and cared for by their inhabitants. As so often, where people have been allocated to someone else's vision of a nice place, it becomes dysfunctional, lawless, unkempt, disgraceful and disgraced. Yet this is what the Bill is proposing. Strategic planning is to be put into the hands of peripatetic professionals, far, far away, who know everything and understand no one.
The Deputy Prime Minister has said that the Bill will make planning fairer and more predictable. The whole point of strategic planning is that it should be both strategic and sensitive to the locality. It is therefore
136
wholly different for each place, and therefore has an element of unpredictability, and probably an element of incomprehensibility to others. The imperatives for East Sussex are possibly quite alien to South Shields. You simply cannot have decisions for Sussex that appear fair and predictable in South Shields.
The Bill heralds a philosophy of community participation but its effect is actually the reverse. It is much more in line with the Government's policy of centralisation, as has been said by many noble Lords this afternoon.
As my noble friend Lord Hanningfield has said, instead of simplifying, the Bill complicates and obfuscates. As the Law Society points out, the public will have to navigate the new hierarchy of LDDs, LDFs, LDSs, DPDs, DPs and SPDs. The process of public involvement in the drafting of development plans will be almost continuous. It will take a heroic individual with boundless energy, and suffering from a life of extreme boredom, to navigate and participate effectively.
Quite rightly, as I think we have all agreed this afternoon, as did those in another place, the aim of the Government is to speed up planning decisions. I have often heard developers say that they would prefer a "No" decision rather than a slow decision, because at least with a "No" decision they can go to appeal. I was encouraged by what the Minister said this afternoon in response to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and I hope that that will be achieved.
Lest the Minister consider me churlish, I acknowledge that the draft regulations state that,
"the Regional Planning Board should be particularly careful to ensure that it works on a partnership basis with local planning authorities and the county councils."
So it does mention the county councils. However, partnerships in all walks of life take skill, commitment, tenacity and trust. Partnerships disintegrate, partnerships break down, some are a charade, some are more myth than reality. Of course we should urge planning authorities to work together; indeed we should require them to work together. That is not on the face of the Bill. We should not give regional planning bodies the opportunity to ignore inconvenient constraints and local views. Therefore, I am supporting the Local Government Association, the County Councils' Network and my county of East Sussex in seeking to enshrine the strategic planning role of county councils on the face of the Bill.
6.29 p.m.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, this Bill has been described by numerous speakers this afternoon as a key element of the Government's agenda for speeding up the planning system. While welcoming the aims of the Bill in seeking greater efficiency and speed as I have suffered in many of the posts I have occupied from inefficiency and slowness, I remain unconvinced that the Bill as it stands will achieve the outcomes the Government are seeking. Despite the many positive aspects of the Bill, it may well increase the complexity of the process and slow

137
down planning decisions. It will certainly centralise control and reduce the power ordinary people have over their lives unless there are many improvements as the Bill makes its progress through this House. However, those who have already spoken have greater authority than I in those areas.
I want to speak about other possible outcomes that could be in direct conflict with the Government's objectives. The provision to alter the way that current planning gain is achieved, commonly known as Section 106 agreements, could reduce opportunities for the development of social housing, as was outlined by my noble friend Lord Best. I should like to concentrate in particular on housing for disabled people, although I support the general thrust of his argument in terms of general social housing.
I declare an interest as president of John Grooms. Our sister charity, John Grooms Housing Association, is the leading provider of wheelchair accessible housing in the United Kingdom with nearly 1,200 Homes—what a small number for the leader in housing provision for the disabled—in management. Our joint mission is to enable every wheelchair user with whom we work to achieve a level of independence equal to his or her potential.
A house that is unsuitable for a disabled person can restrict them to one room. That room becomes bathroom, kitchen, living and sleeping space. For the disabled person it becomes a prison cell. John Grooms Housing Association calculates that countrywide there is a shortfall of some 300.000 houses suitable for people who are wheelchair users. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, said, planning for this need is absolutely essential.
I recently chaired an inquiry for John Grooms looking at the future for disabled people. We identified that between 30 per cent and 47 per cent of wheelchair users consider their current housing and support to be inadequate. More than 8,000 young adult wheelchair users are living in care homes designed for different client groups, usually elderly people. We believe that some of them could be accommodated in housing. If the Bill will help move that forward, we welcome it. Any one of us could find ourselves in this position. We cannot distance ourselves from disability. Any one of us could have a car accident or find ourselves suffering from a degenerative disease. Then we would really understand what it is like to live in one room.
However, the main issue in relation to this Bill for John Grooms and many other housing associations is that the proposed alteration will allow developers to pay a predetermined charge to the planning authority rather than providing social housing or other community facilities in return for planning permission. Can the Minister give any reassurance on that matter?
I believe that the Government's objective of wanting to develop mixed tenure communities, as set out in the Sustainable Communities plan, will also be compromised by that proposal. I believe that I have some understanding of what a sustainable community might comprise. Where a developer is given a chance to build a social housing development away from the
138
main development site, experience tells us that that is the option that will be chosen. That is against the spirit of the Government's Sustainable Communities plan, which is designed to create mixed communities of different forms of tenure. The Government have many other programmes aimed at equal opportunity and integration that will be negatively affected by that provision. How will the Government ensure that that does not happen in the new system?
Will the Minister say how the development charges will be calculated? Absolute transparency in the way the charges for the developer are set is essential. Complexity does not help in that regard. Indeed, the developing and building costs of wheelchair accessible housing are initially higher than for general housing needs. How will that issue be factored in initially? I say initially because we have an ageing and more disabled population. In terms of adaptations and changes to housing, building better wheelchair housing initially may be economically better in the long run.
With the substantial government push to build new houses, particularly in the south-east, there is the potential to get things badly wrong in the pursuit of short-term gain. Will there be a period of evaluation of the new system? Will it be tested in one area before being implemented countrywide? How will it be evaluated? How will the sustainability and quality of new developments be assured?
The new system needs to have clear and simplified government guidelines, or it will suffer from the same problems as the current one, which I do not believe is perfect. The new arrangement must ensure that the needs of the whole community, including disabled people, are taken into account so that future housing developments are accessible to all—including wheelchair users, who could be any of us in the House in future.
6.36 p.m.
Lord Rogers of Riverside: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of Richard Rogers Architects, chief adviser to the Mayor of London on architecture and urbanism, and as an adviser to the Mayor of Barcelona. I am also chairman of the National Tenants Resource Centre. I thank my noble friend Lord Rooker for outlining the Bill. Although I broadly agree with the comments made today, I also have considerable sympathy with the Bill. It is the creation of genuine sustainable communities by which its success ought to be judged, rather than simply bald housing targets.
Although long in structure, the Bill is short in aspiration. Quality and values cannot be defined by regulations, standards or figures. I am of course delighted to hear about further rationalisation. I am the architect who was involved for 14 years between winning the competition for terminal 5 and digging the first hole. That was an immensely expensive experience.
The Government must be congratulated on being the first government who recognise that the city is the only sustainable form of living. Until now, all governments have tried to persuade people to move out. They have not put together the fact that, in terms of buildings, we are

139
the third-most dense country in the world. We have less countryside than any other European country apart from Holland. The Government have also put together the link between social exclusion and physical fragmentation. They have put policies from the Urban Task Force—I was its happy chairman—and its report, Towards an Urban Renaissance, in numerous White Papers and other papers specifically related to sustainable communities. I welcome all that movement and think it a considerable step forward.
Our cities have for many years suffered from the tremendous financial success of the Industrial Revolution and from being the most successful country in terms of it. There was a very different anti-city movement. Everyone who could moved out. We had an immediate reaction with the garden city and a further reaction with the modern movement and the concept of buildings in parks, especially high-rise in parks.
In fact, the nature of the city has not changed over the 5,000 years in which it has existed. Cities are for meetings of friends and strangers. Cities are the engines for our economy. They are the most powerful part of our culture. They have created such concepts as the civil society and citizenship. Even today, it is the public domain which links the city together: it is the glue and the space between the buildings. Today, we are returning to the concept that the city is about streets, squares and the walk from the doorstep to the corner shop.
I have studied numerous cities and the more I study them the more passionate I become about them. Today we have the possibility of comparing the cities of the world. One can compare life in Barcelona with life in Los Angeles. One can compare life in, say, Newcastle or Birmingham with life in some of the cities that have sprawled or emptied out. With that information, we can move forward.
The post-industrial city is a great chance to repair the tears within; once more to make cities attractive to people. The post-industrial city does not suffer from the problems of an industrial city. We have tremendous global information and that gives us extraordinary powers. We can study what is wrong with Phoenix. It covers the same amount of ground as Los Angeles at one-third of the density. If we thought that Los Angeles is basically tarmac—it is in fact 50 per cent—Phoenix is three times as much. That is one extreme we can compare.
Furthermore, we can look at some of our beautiful villages and towns. I am not talking about copying them but about studying their spirit. We can look at Copenhagen where one-third of all the people travel by bicycle, although it snows and is dark for about one quarter of the year. It has nothing to do with size because one travels only a limited distance by bicycle. We can look at the fantastic public transportation system of Strasbourg, or we can look again at Barcelona and its high density, but with no buildings more than eight storeys. In living terms, Barcelona
140
compares with the density of Manhattan, but it has different organisation. I am not talking about high or low buildings but about places for people.
Changing family patterns due to the way that we live again give us tremendous potential for moving back into cities. The average family is now 2·5 children. Sixty per cent of people between 20 and 60 are single and live as single people. In 1841, life expectancy of workers in Manchester and London was 17 years. Children born today have a life expectancy of 100 years. There has been a total change in lifestyles in those cities. There is also a high divorce rate and we are looking at a large demand on single-person dwellings. So we have the individualisation of society and those people need a form of urban space different from large families. Families with a four-bedroom dwellings and a cat and a dog are more likely to want to live where they can meet their friends. We also have education—basically from mother's knee to death. Again, the city offers all the necessary frameworks and institutions to support that.
Thirdly, there is global information, changing family patterns and the fact that we have become ecologically conscious. Internationally, we lag seriously behind. The British are little worse than most of the others but we are certainly conscious that, if we do not change the way that we live, we threaten the future of mankind.
Sustainable development may be difficult to define but there is no reason why one should not do so. I believe that the Bill should strengthen that area. I welcome the duty contained in the Bill to have regard to the achievement of sustainable development, but such a duty is meaningless without a proper definition of "sustainability" on the face of the Bill. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that this is a critical area that we need to expand.
My definition of "sustainable development" would include developing compact, live-work cities that are well connected and well designed. together with combating polarisation and social exclusion. It would include minimising resources, reducing waste and cutting energy and materials inputs. In other words, we should change the way that we do things. We should protect the eco systems and grow through ingenuity, innovation, cohesion and sustainable technology. Without tremendous difficulty, we can reduce the amount of energy in dwellings by 30, 40 or 50 per cent. We need new building regulations which are far stronger than those we have at present to help us along that path.
The Urban Task Force and the following White Paper enshrined a number of principles. They were that cities should be compact and multi-centred but not fragmented. In many of our cities or capital cities—again, I refer to places such as Manchester and Birmingham—whole areas are derelict, where perhaps only one out of five houses is occupied. In areas with that amount of empty space, the police, nurses, teachers and corner-shop owners all move out. Therefore, we require compact, multi-centred cities.
We need cities where work and leisure overlap and where places can all be reached easily by foot, bicycle or public transport. We need neighbourhoods which

141
are a mix of poor and rich and not a series of ghettos of one or the other. Neighbourhoods should he well connected, and I do not refer only to transport. In a really well planned neighbourhood, one can walk to most of the principal elements. The assumption is made that people will want to walk to a shop, a bus stop or the health centre. However, that requires a certain density of population because, to set up a bus stop, there need to be 5,000 to 10,000 people. Therefore, we know that the level of density required is probably 50 dwellings to the hectare. We want well designed cities; we want cities that care about ecology; and, of course, we want just cities.
Again, on the positive side, there is a tremendous demand for people who need houses. We are talking about 4 million dwellings—that is, about 20 per cent of new households. That represents an area bigger than London. How do we add that number of dwellings to a country which has a limited number of greenfield sites but a tremendous store of industrial brownfield sites? How do we achieve those communities? Can they help to fill the holes that are in our cities?
London will increase in population between 1986 and 2016 by about 1·5 million people. It is certainly much bigger than Birmingham or Manchester—it is practically as large as both put together.
The Mayor has stated that London's population should be housed within its 33 boroughs—no sprawl, no new town, but totally contained. I absolutely welcome that. That is how we can get public transport to start to work. One needs density to have a public transport system. The development figure for England, which again is about the lowest in western Europe, is an average of around 24 dwellings per hectare. That is absolutely not sustainable. One cannot have a public transport system with that kind of density; therefore, travel must be car based. One cannot have corner shops or neighbourhoods. If one starts to develop a slightly higher density, which is not based on the existing infrastructure, one has to pay for that infrastructure.
For suburban sprawl, for housing in the countryside and so on, it has been calculated that the taxpayer pays a subsidy of about £50,000 for each dwelling. That is not only for the roads and the utilities but also for schools. Of course if one is building in compact cities there are already schools and hospitals. One has all those institutions. If one adds all that together, one is actually subsidising countryside living.
As usual, one cannot totally ban greenfield development. Again, the Government have taken a great step forward by saying that one should build on brownfield sites first and only then use greenfield sites. I think that they should be tougher and that a target should be set of 60 per cent. I have already mentioned London, which is looking at 80 to 100 per cent of brownfield use. Many cities can achieve that. It is worrying that in the north, where there are many brownfield sites, greenfield sites are being built on.
Design is a critical part of our nation. We all love our Georgian terraces and the long avenues—the Notting Hill Gates with a fairly private public park
142
and so on. Those are high-density developments and they are well designed. So without design, there cannot be an urban renaissance. Our public spaces, specifically our roads, footpaths and squares, are extremely shabby. They are among the shabbiest in Europe. They need repair. We need to increase our design skills. There is no mention of design in the Bill. On the other hand, the task force and the White Paper state that design, social inclusion and environmental understanding are the three major drivers.
Regarding transport, again we are critical. I make one point. At the Thames Gateway in London, if we had such transport as has been discussed, in my opinion we could create up to 200,000 dwellings. If we do not, the Government claim they will achieve 60,000. That is the difference transport makes. It is not just a question of transport; we shall throw away our heritage in terms of that land because it will become suburban sprawl.
The same situation applies with devolution. I congratulate the Government on devolution, but it does not give enough power to the cities.
I list seven key priorities, with which I shall conclude. First, to achieve sustainable development, as referred to in the Bill, we must make brownfield development more attractive than greenfield development. That means positive fiscal incentives for the development of brownfield sites, as supported by Kate Barker's Review of Housing Supply. Only after all the possible brownfield land is used should growth areas proposed in the Sustainable Communities Plan be developed. I suggest that Her Majesty's Government should introduce a statutory duty to consider brownfield sites first.
Secondly, sustainability can further be achieved by encouraging the recycling of buildings by harmonising VAT. I first argued that point in the task force report in 1999. Your Lordships may be aware that it was also advanced by Kate Barker's recent report on housing.
Thirdly, the quality of planning skills in many local authorities is extremely poor. The Bill's proposed devolution to regional planning bodies will require a step change in the quality of planning decisions and the skills level of those making them.
Fourthly, we require the restructuring of professional training so as to be better equipped to deliver the goals of the urban renaissance by creating a single profession of architects and planners. That happens abroad, whether in Spain or France.
Fifthly, I welcome the proposed devolution of planning powers to regional planning bodies. It is conceivable that existing regional development agencies will become the proposed regional planning bodies. Many have already assumed a built environment role. Regional development agencies' powers should be extended to include physical urban regeneration and design alongside economic development; and they should enjoy a closer relationship with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
Sixthly, the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment should set up a number of regional resource centres for urban development, promoting innovation and good practice, especially in the public

143
domain. That could assist community participation in the planning process, as envisaged in the Bill. Architectural centres should also be placed in all our major cities, again to encourage participation between professionals and the public.
Seventhly, the Government have suggested that they no longer want to abolish outline planning permission. I should welcome my noble friend's assurance that if outline planning permission is retained, that will be on condition that developers will be required to provide a detailed design statement with each application. Within that statutory duty, the Government should then provide detailed requirements for design statements in secondary legislation and a new PPS1—or even a long-overdue dedicated PPS on planning and design.
To conclude, if our cities are to compete with the best examples abroad, if they are to function as economic generators, if they are to attract citizens to live and meet, rather than repel them, if they are to be environmentally sustainable, the Government must deliver those goals. We must get our cities right both physically and socially, so that all the Government's work on education, health, employment and crime is not undermined.
The Urban Task Force was tasked with establishing a new vision for urban regeneration, founded on the principles of design excellence, social well-being and environmental responsibility within a viable economic and legislative framework. I hope that my noble friend can reassure the House that the Government share those objectives.
6.58 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I have always had a downer on architects, because one of my forebears was the first president of the RIBA and built himself a monstrosity that was unliveable in and was the beginning of the end of the family's finances. None the less, it has been a great pleasure to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Rogers of Riverside. I have had the pleasure of listening to him several times. I agree absolutely with him about what needs to be done. However, I also agree that what it takes is not in the Bill. There is no emphasis on design.
The difficulty with building houses on brownfield sites is that one is building one of the most immovable forms of land occupation that there is. One must achieve absolute dereliction in housing before one gets a chance to change it.
It is essential to the continued health of a city that there are places where it can develop whatever else it needs in 50 years' time, which we cannot now anticipate. There must be places where those things can go. If we are to fill many of those places with housing, it must be extremely well designed and must constitute communities, not housing estates. Much more energy and imagination must be used to create the city than we have heretofore allowed. I am not clear that anyone is being given the powers necessary to ensure that that happens. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, will give us some of his time in
144
Committee and possibly table an amendment or two in order that we might make some progress on that. I can see that I shall be an active participant in Committee.
There is a lot in the Bill that I hope will work. I will be trying to make sure that we get right the details of outline planning permission and the three-year time limit so that they will work in practice.
I shall also urge strongly that we allow local authorities to treat their planning control departments as real profit centres. We have all seen what has happened as a result of the freeing-up of local authorities' parking fees. The whole business of road management and maintenance has become enormously effective. In areas such as Kensington and Chelsea, if the streets are not paved with gold now, they soon will be, because the council has nothing else on which to spend its profits.
Planning departments should acquire a new status. Local authorities should value running them well because they could be a real source of revenue and strength. At the moment, the fees are ridiculously low. They are tiny when compared with the value of the developments. The whole system could stand fees that are four or five times their current level. That would allow high-quality planning professionals to be employed and provide the lubrication that the system needs to run well.
My goodness, we need some improvements. Kate Barker's interim review is a real wake-up call. We laugh when the Albanians become involved in enormous pyramid schemes; we shrug our shoulders at women empowering women. But we find ourselves in one of the most extraordinary schemes ever; namely, the British housing market. There is no wealth creation in the ever-increasing spiral of house prices. It merely passes money from one set of people to another, with a general level of parasitic losses as it goes on. We are impoverishing the younger generation to enrich the old. All kinds of economic distortions are being introduced by the endless progression of house prices. We are beginning to see that the problems associated with affordable housing all occur because the general level of house prices has risen so much.
Ridiculously—though we have come to accept it as normal—housing is considered an investment. Housing is for living in. We get out of houses the pleasure of living in them. During the past 20 years, the average household income has risen in real terms by 20 per cent. There has been an increase in individual incomes, but a decreasing size of household. During that same period, the average size of house occupied by the average householder has decreased by 20 per cent. We think that we are becoming a more prosperous nation, but we are living in smaller and smaller boxes. That is ridiculous. We should enshrine in policy an ambition that people live in better and nicer houses 20 years from now, with more space and more objects about them that give them delight. Our ambition should not be that they live in a more expensive, but smaller, house. I hope that that will not be the case, because the economic dislocation that has resulted from the current state of the housing market will be even worse.

145
As Kate Barker points out, the root of the problem is the planning system. We have allowed it to become sclerotic; we have made it permissible that the supply is restricted to the point that the only way in which prices can go is up.
As a nation, we should take up another suggestion in Kate Barker's report and set ourselves an objective that house prices should not go up in real terms. The general cost of an individual unit of housing should be stable in real terms. If the Government set that as an objective and hand down that objective to planning authorities in one way or another, the consequence will be a great calming in the housing market. People will not pay immensely increasing prices if they think that they will face a drop. We should say, "No, we have gone far enough. This is the level of prices we will accept. Any increase beyond this and we will be aiming to reduce it". If people believed that the Government were doing that, there would be a calming of the situation. To that extent, the Bill is a lost opportunity. Perhaps the Kate Barker review will give us the opportunity for another one; but, as has been said, we see such Bills very infrequently.
I hope that there are measures that we can take in the Bill to allow us to start to tackle the situation—one would be to make planning departments real profit centres for local authorities. We must do more. We must see an end to the house-price spiral; it does nobody good. It is not really what we should want. We should want to invest our money in productive opportunities. not in this ridiculous housing spiral, which profits only those selling land into the system and those living off it.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, the previous two speeches have taken us into realms of interesting architectural detail. Although I am the descendant of a famous Victorian architect, whose house I have had to pull down, I have been unable to follow that detail. The Bill is replete of detail. I propose, therefore, to speak more generally on the main issues that it raises. I shall refer to some of the significant subsidiary points of detail, but that will not be the main theme of my speech.
My starting point is the equality of the existing system. It is already a national planning system, based on a legal framework embracing the country as a whole, with some significant variations in devolved issues for Scotland and Wales. In general, our system follows the best possible pattern, giving as it does special protection to particular places classified as national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, a topic on which I wholly agree with what my noble friend Lord Chorley said. It gives flexibility on individual issues, a responsibility held by the Secretary of State, for which he is accountable to Parliament. But the engine room of our system is the local planning authority, whose committees of elected councillors determine each planning application. The core structure is a national scheme managed at the centre by the elected national government of the day but executed in detail by the elected local people, who know their area and represent their electorate.
146
I have long been interested in the subject. As a schoolboy during the Second World War, it intrigued me to read some of the books and newspaper articles then current about the need for a proper system for controlling land use. The writers whose opinions tended to form my views were Thomas Sharp, in this country, and Lewis Mumford, in the United States. The popular and brilliantly successful magazine Picture Post also printed well informed and cogent articles on the theme. By the end of the war the public had reached an unspoken consensus that we needed a national scheme if we were to avoid building millions of acres of inferior housing lining the edges of our main roads, as has already happened on the Kingston bypass—the A3—on the southern suburbs of London. That would simply be the modern version of back-to-back housing in our northern industrial cities a century earlier.
In the past 30 years I have lived in a number of countries, largely in Europe, east and west, and in America, North and South. I have formed the clear impression that our planning system stands up very well in comparison with other countries In fact, our system is superior to the general practice elsewhere. That is certainly the case as regards the shores of the Mediterranean. The peninsula of Attica, near Athens, is a case in point. That beautiful rocky coastline has been overwhelmed by the helter-skelter cramming of villas on cliffs, and now by the building of an airport and connecting railway to serve the millions who will attend the Olympic Games in Athens this year, if they can afford to pay the hotel bills.
In Italy, the Adriatic coast adjacent to Rimini has suffered a similar fate. The Italian example is particularly interesting. New housing in Italy requires a planning permit, and the local authorities that enforce the system are mostly those with councillors representing parties of the radical Left, notably the communist party of Italy, the PCI, and its fellow travellers. Elsewhere, the general practice would be for a developer to build a house on his own land without seeking permission, which is difficult to get. Then, when the Italian Treasury suffered one of its periodic devastating mismatches between falling revenue and rising expenditure, a Bill would be hastily introduced into the national parliament to legitimise illegal construction on the payment of a fine, or pardon. The system was known as the condono. A similar system is applied in Italy to legitimise the presence of illegal immigrants. The Treasury, or Tesoro, in Rome, manages to survive thanks to these expedients, but the loss of control over the environment and the flood of illegal immigrants have had devastating consequences.
I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Deputy Prime Minister will not seek to emulate these awful practices here. That is not consistent with a good land planning system. Some passages in the Bill seem to be capable of manipulation. I am sure that is not the intention, but it could happen in the same way. I have no doubt that the noble Lords on the Government Front Bench will indignantly deny the imputation. My message is this: do not destroy or mutilate the system

147
we have won. It works for the interests of the nation as a whole, and is a great deal better than is generally recognised.
The largest defect in the Bill is the transfer of power away from local councils to regional authorities, some of which may, at an unknown future date, receive an input from elected councillors. But the regional staff and civil servants are chosen and appointed by the Government in London, who also provide funds for their favourite policies. This seems to be a massive step backwards. I concur with the CPRE's opinion that this system would be,
"less accountable and more complicated".
We have already suffered a decline in the ability of district councillors to take part in the debates in planning committees following the introduction of the so-called "cabinet system". Most decisions are now delegated to officers and are not discussed by the councillors. Sadly, the present Bill would carry this undemocratic system a stage further by centralising in London all important decisions, including Clause 1(2), which should be studied by all noble Lords who have not yet done so. I do not wish to see us follow this direction.
Nevertheless, there are some important improvements available at significant points of interest, including the exemption of Crown lands. In the planning context, this is particularly significant in the case of property owned by the Ministry of Defence. The Ministry is keen to obtain the highest possible price for the sale of its property when it is no longer required, more or less regardless of the environmental aspects and the consideration of the local council.
Another issue that will require our attention is the reform of planning gain on which a number of noble Lords have touched. This is a difficult concept, and the Government's proposals are well intentioned, but the voluntary tariff scheme to replace negotiated Section 106 agreements needs further study. We do not want to see local authorities using a tariff as an income-producing facility. There is some danger that this might happen.
I also hope that the Bill will improve the existing system relating to the release of damaged land—what are called brownfield sites. This was an excellent initiative initially, but it has been diverted, and controversially so, by the use of policy planning guidance to include cottage gardens in villages as brownfield sites. This was not the original intention, and it has led to purchases of the land by developers who cram large and expensive houses on to small sites, which are inevitably sold to wealthy people in retirement or planning for it. This is land that could so easily be used for local housing schemes for less well-off people, but it is deprived of that purpose. Planning committees feel unable to prevent that abuse of the scheme under existing rules.
I welcome the Government's decision to end twin-tracking. A related matter that is not included in the Bill is the practice—too common, I fear—of hastily digging trenches and the laying of foundations to
148
validate a planning consent granted, say, four years and 364 days previously. That is an abuse of the system. It would help if councils were able to vary an existing permission if local circumstances had changed considerably since it was granted.
More work also needs to be done on the third party right of appeal that would enable interested organisations active in the environmental field to take issues to appeal, which at present they are unable to do. A particularly awful example has come to my notice, which I intend to mention in Committee. But I shall not weary the House with it now.
A final bee in my bonnet is the widespread practice involving council officers who deal with planning matters. Quite often, those people take early retirement and set up in business as planning consultants. They negotiate applications to the council whose employment they have just left. It should be possible to insert a clause in their original contract of employment under which they undertake not to engage in such private consultancy within the boundaries of the council for five years after leaving the council's service.
That is certainly the practice in central government, as I discovered when I was about to retire from public service on reaching the statutory age of 60. I received a firm letter from my department informing me that if I had any intention of taking up employment or was approached by anyone, it should be immediately informed and I should make no commitments. I would require the personal commitment of the Foreign Secretary before I could undertake any employment in retirement. Subsequently, for a number of years, I served as a member of the Prime Minister's advisory committee on business appointments. In order to avoid any unnecessary conflict, behavioural undertakings of that kind were made to an officer who was thinking of taking such a post.
It has been suggested to me recently that the kind of clause that I suggest for local government contracts would be unacceptable under the European Convention on Human Rights. I have been told that Strasbourg—I do not know whether it was the Commission or the staff—has given that opinion. I do not expect the Minister to know the answer now but, as it is a matter of interest, I should be most grateful if he could investigate and write to me in due course, and to send a copy of his letter to the Library of the House.
In conclusion, the Government say that their system would be simpler, fairer and faster. Faster, maybe; but, surely, less fair and certainly not simpler. The Government have underrated the genuine qualities of the existing system. The arrangements for sub-regional planning seem to be particularly fragile in the new scheme of things and will introduce fresh complexities. I have a personal concern about the protection of the landscape, which I think is valued much more by the nation as a whole than by the Government in particular. It is hardly too much to say that if the Government proceed with the Bill in its present form, they will be throwing out the baby with the bath water. That is rather an extreme measure when the baby in question—the planning system—is in quite robust health and is not responsible for its own diet.

149
Can it be right to alter the planning system and the local government system at the same time? It would be much more sensible for the Government to proceed seriatim. If they want to alter the local government system, they should do that before devising a planning system to meet it. Those are some of the points that I shall follow up in Committee.
7.19 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I realise that the whole House will be looking forward to my speech because it is the last one before the wind-ups, and I know that I shall get a good reception. Like many colleagues, I, too, need to parade some interests. My first is that of joint president of the Association of London Government with my very good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. He has been in his place most of the evening. He is not here now but he listened to the debate with care and attention.
Secondly, I declare an interest as the chair of a planning committee in the London Borough of Enfield, although I am sorry to say that that was more than 40 years ago. However, tonight noble Lords bring their own experiences of life in local government, such as those of the Leader of Essex County Council; as a resident I cheerfully pay my rates to him. I detect all around the House colleagues with a wealth of experience in local government.
My third declaration is as a consultant to the Cooperative Group, which is the world's largest consumer co-operative owned and controlled by its members. It is a family of businesses whose activities range from food to finance and from farming to funerals.
The first point I want to make is that Co-operative Farmcare is Britain's largest farmer. Thus the largest farm in the country is owned co-operatively and mutually. On consulting Co-operative Farmcare on its interests here, I have been asked to draw to the attention of the House a clear worry that the democratic structure at a local level in the countryside may be under some challenge or question whereby, in effect, the basic local authorities and environmental agencies may be deprived of their opportunity to speak on behalf of their people. I make the point because no issue has been raised tonight that has not already been raised by a lobby group or by individuals. In that sense, nothing is new, but I think that the Minister would welcome a reinforcement of one point or another which, on balance, may help him when he comes to review and reflect.
I turn to the proposals to scrap county plans, with the possibility that that will disenfranchise democratically elected county councils. I think that the Minister and his colleagues would be well advised to take on board a feeling reflected during the debate that there are worries about this. I do not use pejorative language, but there is a worry here.
I am a friend of the Bill. I support it and I support what the Minister and his colleagues are trying to do. Who can argue with the simple statement that the purpose of the Bill is to speed up the planning system? Earlier I referred to my experience as a chairman of a
150
planning committee in Enfield. Nothing will have changed. I can recall, as can anyone else who has served in local government, encountering a petition, a full meeting of the council, a march and agitation of one kind or another by people affected by a very small element of the council's activities. They are entitled to do all that; it concerns their lives. But when that agitation disappears, where are the people who are demanding democratic involvement? I have mixed feelings about statements which assert that more people want to become involved. In my view, more people do not want to be involved: they want to leave it to others. The Minister must take care in that respect.
Who can argue with the opening statement of the Minister that the objectives of the Bill are to make our planning system fairer, faster and more predictable? Those are laudable aims, but the proof is in the eating of the pudding, which will be way down the line. Over the next few weeks, we are charged with giving the Minister and his colleagues the necessary powers.
Who can argue with the Minister's assertion that the Bill sets out to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy? We all sign up to that, but what does it mean in practice? I take heart from the Minister's constantly reiterated theme that he is working to find solutions, to define clarity of purpose and to stress that the Bill is not the whole story. Despite the extraordinary length of time between First Reading in the other place to us considering the Bill in this House, I take that theme as an omen of the care that the Government want to take to get it right, or as near right as they can. The various interests—ratepayers, house owners, land owners, businesses, developers—will all need to feel that even if they have not gained anything they have been listened to with attention. I hope that the Minister will say something about that in his reply to the debate.
I took heart from his proclamation that no one will be snuffed out of consultation—in other words, that the consultation necessary to make a case is likely to be strengthened and available. I welcome that protestation.
Many of the questions that have been raised are valid. Speaking as a former councillor and Member of Parliament, and as someone who is concerned about and pays attention to this issue, I believe that the heart of the Bill relates to the twin aims of the Government in regard to land use and the provision of more and more affordable housing. This is what drives the Bill and I applaud it. At long last the Government are tackling the grotesque distortion in our housing stock, which is a crime. When the history of the past 30 years is written we will see exactly how much damage has been done through being careless in the pursuit of political dogma and doctrine driven by the right-to-buy legislation.
I do not quibble about people owning their own houses or councils selling their own houses but, after a period in which we have seen abuse after abuse, I applaud the Government for beginning to tackle the basic issue. One used to refer to the "council housing stock", in which there were millions of houses. That has been changed and we now have a publicly owned stock and housing associations have taken the place of

151
councils. I have no argument about the mix but I certainly have an argument about the manner in which we have been taken for a ride.
I sense that the Minister and his colleagues will deal with the situation by providing more affordable housing through the use of planning and planning control—which is inevitable; we need to control what happens—and that they will use the Bill as an instrument for making life better for those people who, without a decent home, have a serious problem. So I welcome the adjustments to the existing planning legislation outlined in the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, said that she was a "junkie" during her early days with local government. As a local government groupie, I consider that anyone who has served seriously on a local council is a friend of local councils and local government for life because you get to the heart of helping your fellow citizens. I can see that the legislation will be a goldmine for someone like me. Where do you start? What issues do you pick up? I may well return at a later stage to the issue of planning gain, which makes me hot under the collar.
The debate has demonstrated that the Minister will not lack helpful suggestions, nor will any interest group outside the House be able to complain that it has been denied consultation. A wealth of experience rests within the House. We listen most to people who we sense are speaking from their own experience. Noble Lords on the Front Benches opposite are good examples, as are all those who have spoken, of the experience that can be brought to the debate. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues are in the mood to recognise—especially given the arithmetic of the House—that this is a good opportunity to reflect on, and perhaps change, some of the policies within the Bill. I certainly give the Bill a warm welcome at Second Reading.
7.29 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, to use the phraseology of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, I am probably also a local government groupie, although I have not practised for some 10 years. I should declare my interests. I am president of the National Housing Forum and a vice-president of the National Housing Federation.
The Government's planning Green Paper promised a clear and comprehensible planning system,
"capable of reaching decisions that command public confidence".
Indeed, the Minister expanded on that in his opening remarks. From this afternoon's debate, it is clear that the majority of us would sign up to that proposition. And yet we have heard many reservations about this Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, which should enable the Government to achieve many of the worthy aims that they set out in the Green Paper and elsewhere since its publication.
Many similar reservations have been expressed in the speeches this afternoon, all with different nuances, based on the experiences of the individual speakers. We heard of worries over centralisation and the
152
removal of accountability. We heard doubts about whether the Government's claim of simplification was true. We heard concern about the lack of any real third-party right of appeal. There was concern about the role of the planning system, the meaning of sustainability, the role of planners, the role of design and the practices of planning inspectors. One issue that emerged above all this afternoon was concern about the changes in the role of county councils.
Some proposals received a welcome. Planning aid grants were mentioned a couple of times. Several noble Lords referred to the removal of Crown immunity. The removal of twin or multiple tracking—which is when people continue to put in applications while appeals are going on—was also welcomed.
We also heard concerns about whether we will get the balance right on certain issues. My noble friend Lord Greaves described very clearly the problems of balancing speed and quality when making planning decisions. We heard from several noble Lords about the problems of trying to involve large and small communities dealing with large and small developments within the planning system.
Many organisations, from those directly involved in planning to the many concerned with the environment in its widest sense, have shown interest in the Bill. I can tell from the speeches made this afternoon that we have all received a huge number of briefings and material, for which we are very grateful. Among the organisations which have lobbied us there is a general agreement that if we are to change the present planning framework, which has, on the whole, served us well for 50 years, as several noble Lords have said this afternoon, then the Bill should ensure a planning system that is stronger, more effective and more open than the one we have.
There was only one dissenting voice on whether the planning system had served us well, and I was not quite sure of the nuance. That was from the noble Lord, Lord Best. He raised the issue of Kate Barker and planning, which was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Planning may be one of the problems in the lack of affordable housing, but it is not the only one, and I do not think it is the only one to which Kate Barker referred. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Best, put us right on that when he said that the reduction in the number of subsidised houses has been the reason for the drop in the number of homes built.
As the Bill passes through this House, the discussion will of course focus on where Members believe the Government have got it wrong and where they think we can help to make the legislation better. Those are the areas on which I intend to concentrate, but I will talk a little about housing because that is the area I am responsible for on these Benches.
Overarching our scrutiny of the Bill is what has gone on before the Bill reached us. Originally, in another place, when the Bill started its passage last January, there were 90 clauses. I was told that 66 received some detailed scrutiny, although the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, thought that it was only 30. The Government obviously listened at that stage to concerns about the Bill, and they

153
later recommitted it to a Standing Committee in the other place last October. However, it arrived with an extra 24 clauses, including the long-awaited and welcome measure to end Crown immunity. During the Commons Report and Third Reading stages last December, further new government clauses were introduced.
Among those was included a voluntary tariff scheme for developers, as an alternative to the present negotiated 106 agreements. There is a concern that, without comprehensive safeguards, that could give local authorities a perverse incentive to favour greenfield developments in order to maximise their income from tariffs. Other noble Lords were concerned about that issue, too. The National Housing Federation also believes that we need safeguards to ensure that this tariff will not cause the supply of affordable housing to decline. The federation believes that that could threaten delivery of the sustainable community plan, and I support the federation in that respect. That issue was raised by a couple of noble Lords, and I am sure that we shall return to it in more detail in Committee. I hope that the Minister will address those real concerns when he winds up.
Other overarching issues were raised, including the purpose of planning and the question surrounding what is sustainable development. In responding to criticisms that the purpose of planning was not adequately set out in the original Green Paper, the Government introduced the new duty in the Bill requiring that regional and local plans be established,
"with a view to contributing to the achievement of sustainable development".
That is in Clause 38, which was also mentioned by other noble Lords.
Many of us welcome the measure, and particularly the establishment of sustainable development in the Bill. However, as we have heard, there is widespread concern that there is no definition surrounding the matter and that Clause 38 is not strong enough. It is also recognised that trying to define "sustainable" is not an easy task. Indeed, we change our views as life develops as to what "sustainable" means. Therefore, I have some sympathy with the arguments that the Government have used when explaining why they have not defined "sustainable". There are also questions about what has happened so far, because law in Britain relies on case law, which can create complications. However, as several of my colleagues have said, I strongly believe that the issue should be pursued in Committee. We need to improve the way in which it is included in the Bill, and I hope that the Minister will indicate in his reply that he is willing to listen to suggestions to strengthen Clause 38.
As the debate today has shown, there is great concern about the role of county councils. That issue arose in almost every speech. In the setting up of regional planning bodies responsible for regional spatial strategies, county council structure plans will he abolished from the planning system. For us on these Benches, and for others in the Chamber, that will result in powers being removed from democratically elected county councils to bodies that are not democratically elected—some of which may never be.
154
Discussions on the issue have led the Government to claim that this is all about devolution. Members of this House will know that we on these Benches are in favour of devolution. However, I have always held the view that the Government's grasp of the philosophy and practice of devolution is a little weak. Devolution is about devolving power downwards, not about power going upwards—which is what the issue of the county councils involves. Interestingly, whether noble Lords are in favour of regional devolution, as we are on these Benches, or against it, more or less one and all feel that the Government have got it wrong. I welcome the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, on the issue. I hope that if the Minister does not listen to me, he will listen to the noble Lord.
Another issue is centralisation. Indeed, the regional planning bodies will be appointed by the Secretary of State, and their strategies will set out Government strategies. As others have said, that is a very centralising measure.
We have another concern about the Bill. We believe that it can be improved to make it clear that regional spatial strategy should set out an overarching spatial framework. My noble friend Lady Hamwee mentioned that earlier. We need this overarching strategy for all the other regional level strategies.
We are also concerned that there is an increase in the importance and influence of regional planning. That concern is perhaps not shared by everyone in the Chamber but we believe that it is important. However, it has to be matched with an increase in community participation. One of my main concerns is that, as I understand it, despite a good deal of rhetoric, the planning reform package in the Bill does not contain one new opportunity for public participation.
The Bill contains a statement of community involvement, which the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, mentioned in his speech this afternoon. It will be the key expression of a right to participate in the local plan making and the development control process. However, it is a procedural mechanism and has rather uncertain legal status. It remains very unclear what new opportunities for participation local authorities will be allowed to enshrine within it.
Third party rights have been dismissed in the Bill and the right to be heard at regional level has specifically been ruled out. These measures send entirely the wrong message at a time when we want the planning process to be more transparent and more legitimate in the eyes of the public—an aim which I believe the Government share.
Many other issues have been raised this afternoon. I am concerned that, although I believe the Government have good intentions, they are often a little muddled in their thinking. They started off wanting to replace outline planning permissions with statements of development principle; now they are going to have the two, I think. That is not the only issue of that nature in the Bill. The Government have a lot of intentions about trying to improve access for the disabled and what they might be able to do through the planning process. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, explained

155
very clearly what needs to be done here. I hope the Government will grasp this issue; they have so far not done so.
I shall conclude on two other issues, the first of which is the link between housing provision and planning, which I touched on earlier. Clause 18 provides an opportunity to ensure that local housing and planning strategies join up. These strategies overlap each other. I hope that I can persuade the Government that local housing strategies should be included in the list of considerations to which local development plans must have regard. That would result in better planned housing that would better match the local economy and the social and environmental needs of localities.
The last issue that I shall raise, and will have to raise in much more detail in Committee, has been raised also by Friends of the Earth. It is probably the only truly new point that I am introducing this afternoon—the planning loophole for retail development. As the Minister will know, there was little discussion of this issue in another place. If you have a large supermarket and you want to build a mezzanine level inside your big hangar, you can do so without planning permission. It has come to the notice of several people that certain large supermarkets are putting in huge floors in some of their buildings, but there has been no opportunity for local people to have any say about how it will affect their community. Again, I hope that the Minister will have an open mind on this issue—and on many of the other issues that have been raised this afternoon in a good wide-ranging debate.
Many aspects of the Bill are to be welcomed. However, it is quite clear that much more scrutiny is needed to make the Bill clearer, simpler and more workable, so that we can have a planning system that local people feel they own. We want a planning system that will produce thriving and environmentally and economically sustainable communities which will be able to adapt. The world is always changing. Although it did not adapt perfectly, the planning system that we have had for the past 50 years did adapt. We need to ensure that we produce a planning Bill that will serve the country for at least the next 50 years.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I do not want to be left out in the declaration of interests so perhaps I should also declare my interest not only as a member of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea but also as a member of its planning committee. Therefore, I am currently deeply involved in planning. I am sure that all noble Lords will be very aware that Kensington and Chelsea balances the pressure of development with conservation and takes its work with developers very seriously.
At the outset I acknowledge and agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said regarding the balance that needs to be preserved between speed and having good discussions with developers that lead to good results. During our discussion on the Bill we should
156
not lose sight of the fact that sometimes a little less speed produces far better results at the end of the day. Bureaucratic administration does not always achieve the right results, but sometimes a little give and take along the way will do so.
It is evident from the debate that the Bill is far from trouble free. Even though it has been in the parliamentary system for just over a year little progress seems to have been made in pulling together some of the more controversial aspects and in dealing with the substantial new government clauses to which the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, referred, which were added just as the Bill left the other place.
As a result of that and perhaps as a result of the fact that the Bill was guillotined at an earlier stage, much of the Bill remains undiscussed, despite the timescale involved. As my noble friend Lord Marlesford pointed out, less than one-third was considered. I believe that is correct. Therefore, this House has a major responsibility to ensure that all the Bill's clauses receive detailed scrutiny. I do not think any of us would deny that this is a very important Bill.
The Opposition have many reservations regarding what is now included in the Bill, particularly, as my noble friend Lord Hanningfield mentioned in opening—many other noble Lords have referred to this, including my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew in a very graphic description—the democratic deficit that will result from many of the propositions within it. Despite the fact that regions do not have, and may never have, elected assemblies, the Government still intend to create regional planning bodies which, as we have heard throughout the discussion today, will be required mandatorily to incorporate the Secretary of State's regional guidelines in regional spatial strategies. As we have heard, as yet there is no particular membership and they could therefore I suppose potentially not include any elected members. I was somewhat comforted by the Minister's opening remarks in that regard. However, my noble friend Lady Cumberlege made a most profound speech in which she referred wisely to the lack of accountability that that proposal could bring about.
Even if they have elected representatives, it is inconceivable that the small number could represent even the most minute fraction of the population which the regions serve and which will be affected by any of the regional spatial strategies. The bodies will be so remote from local communities as to make it impossible for them to reflect sensitively their views. The process will not be helped either by the removal of the county councils. We have had much discussion on that this afternoon. It is interesting that, bar one or two speakers, everyone referred to that particular aspect as being something of very, very considerable concern—the fact that the county councils with their legitimate elected representatives will have their statutory role in the structural plan process removed leaving the district councils and their elected representatives beached at the far end of the development plan process.
One matter has not been raised that is rather parochial so far as I am concerned but I need to mention it at this stage. It is the conundrum caused by

157
the situation in London, where the boroughs—individually elected unitary authorities—will be required to make the Mayor's spatial development strategy, the London plan, a formal part of each of their development plans. That is set out in Clause 37(2), and is despite the fact that the draft London plan is not in the format of a statutory development plan. It would have to be heavily amended in order to become one. It does not deal with strategic issues only. If the legislation continues unamended, the complexities of planning in London will be so time-consuming that they will defeat the main purpose of the Bill, which is ostensibly. as we have heard, to streamline and hasten the planning process. During the passage of the Bill, I shall seek to have that matter put right.
Concerns have also been expressed that recommendations made by inspectors on matters to do with any of a variety of local plans that will have to be referred to the Secretary of State for consideration should be binding. There is a plethora of local plans, and that measure could very well take away from locally elected councillors the right to decide what is appropriate for their area. We have heard some pretty pithy comments, if I might say so, on the various attributes of inspectors and their ability to come to correct decisions, so we may want to reflect on that as we go through the Bill.
We have also had concerns about the extensive powers of the Secretary of State to intervene at any stage of any of the multiple processes—and what processes they are. I do not want to go through the plethora of plans again, because they have all been detailed throughout the debate. There will be a spider's web of complexity, and all to replace the unitary development plans. They have their own problems—I admit that they perhaps took a long time to complete—but their single advantage was that they put everything between one set of covers. People know exactly where to find out what the development requirements of a local authority are. Everything is in the one place. With the plethora, developers will be looking all over the show to try to find out what they can and cannot do.
Then there is community involvement. At the moment, my council carries out an enormous amount of consultation. The unitary development plan went through various stages of community consultation. It took time but we ended up with a plan with which everyone was happy. It has been updated several times since. I am sure that every local authority is the same. The involvement of the community is important, but we need to be careful that the statements of community involvement do not simply become a byword for a tick-box. I understand that the Secretary of State will take plans for statutory community involvement unto his own to scrutinise. I do not think that he or his officials will have time to do any such thing.
This is a centralising Bill. It pays no heed to localism. It is designed to promote and implement the Deputy Prime Minister's plans for sustainable communities, and for local people to have little role in brooking any of those schemes.
158
I was a little taken aback this afternoon to read the Evening Standard. My noble friend Lord Marlesford raised the subject, and I do not want to lose track of it. The Evening Standard today tells us that the Deputy Prime Minister will take control of the redevelopment of Milton Keynes, and by doing so of the building of 70,000 houses between now and 2024. He will take over all planning powers, taking those away from the local community. We have the potential for more than a million houses to be built in this country over the next 20 years. If none of them will be supervised, overseen or have their plans developed by the local authorities, there will be not only mayhem, but enormous concern and disenchantment with the whole system. So, if the Minister is unable to refute the report in the Evening Standard— that is precisely what it says—I can only assume that, if correct, the Secretary of State is seeking to use it under major applications to inspectors. I hope that the Minister will reassure us.
As we speak, consultation is continuing on draft regulations and guidelines that will form the basis of the Bill's implementation. I believe that the regulations may have been published, but unfortunately no one has had the courtesy to pass them to us. The consultation on the proposals for changes to Section 106 has not finished and is continuing. We have had much discussion on those provisions, where the local authority can negotiate a sum of money on a site-specific basis for community benefit. In the planning Green Paper the Government proposed that Section 106 be superceded by a tariff system, as has already been mentioned. But it was so complicated that it was dropped almost as soon as it saw the light of day. Despite consultation still being in process—and we know that that consultation does not end for at least another week—there are already new clauses in the Bill to introduce an optional charge based on the estimate by each local authority of its cost or need, as outlined in its local development framework. The proposals are flawed and raise the sort of concerns that have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Wilkins and particularly Lady Howarth, on the effect that the proposals may have on statutory housing and the possibility of being able to deal with matters such as housing for the disabled.
There are flaws in Section 106, but one of its chief advantages is that the money can be used for the local authorities' priorities associated with development. There has probably been more affordable housing built with Section 106 money than with any money from the Housing Corporation. It is a very significant sum of money for affordable housing. I hope that Section 106 will not be lost sight of, even with the option charge as an alternative.
A new statement of development principles has also been mentioned. It is a short order route to dismemberment of outline planning permission. Those proposals also seem to have few friends, largely because they will simply be an indication of allowance for planning along the lines proposed, rather than a firm indication of approval, subject to further detailed design information. Other noble Lords will have had the same information and perhaps pressure from businesses and developers because they are extremely

159
bothered that the change in the legislation would not be acceptable to bankers and lenders; and they would therefore be unable to proceed with, or put finance together for, a development even if they had a statement of development principles—unlike at present with outline planning permission, which is accepted as being the basis for permitting a development.
Two other measures included at a late stage have been mentioned: the removal of Crown immunity which, I believe, nearly everybody will welcome; and, the additional clauses to the compulsory purchase provisions, which are broadly acceptable, but may require further scrutiny. As the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said, there are many other issues. Some have been raised today and the rest will come to the fore as we move into Committee. My noble friend Lord Hanningfield and I look forward to that opportunity to discuss and, we hope, to amend the legislation so that it can go forward as a good and powerful Bill.
7.59 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, before I begin my closing speech, I want to refer to what has been said by, among others, the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, about the sustainable communities plan and I want to put the Bill in context.
In February last year, the Deputy Prime Minister published the sustainable communities plan. I know that at that time I was not present in the House full time but, so far as I could see, this House showed not the slightest interest in the matter. There have been no debates on it and no Parliamentary Questions have been asked. However, the plan is not the size of a telephone directory; it is easily available and it is free. Therefore, if anyone wants to see the strategic plan to which the Deputy Prime Minister's department is operating and by which it is implementing the £22 billion programme, they can do so. The plan is not set out in detail but the document contains information about growth, sustainable communities, good design, better densities, protection of the countryside. the renewal of the areas in the north which have suffered a collapse in the housing market and, of course, the four major growth areas in the south-east.
By and large, outside there has not been a great deal of interest in the way in which the programme is being implemented, but being implemented it is. A further Statement was made in July in respect of the Thames Gateway and about some other issues regarding the south-east, including the hundreds of millions of pounds of expenditure which we allocated to the area. A further Statement is due next month—one year on—relating to parts of the north, the Midlands and aspects of the south.
Therefore, there should be no surprises in what we published yesterday in order to consult on the delivery vehicle for one part of one growth area—namely, the city of Milton Keynes. The measure relating to one of
160
the UDCs in the Thames Gateway has already gone through and a second one is due. Different parts of the growth areas will have different delivery vehicles. Some, of which Ashford is an example, are wholly local-authority based. That is one of the four growth areas. Other areas—for example, the Milton Keynes/south Midlands area, which is a large region covering Corby to Bedford and Luton to Aylesbury—may have three or four different types of delivery vehicle. Some growth areas will be local-authority led and some will have statutory UDC-type arrangements. In one case, an urban regeneration company is already involved.
Therefore, there are no surprises relating to this matter. For a long time, we have been upfront about the different delivery mechanisms. Yesterday, we simply published a consultation paper on the delivery mechanism for the city of Milton Keynes. It does not cover the whole area because obviously we are not treating it as one area. It involves planning powers and it involves borrowing some, but not all, planning powers from the local authority for the large strategic sites. When the planning permissions are given, they will be passed back. The normal planning rules will operate. The consultation paper relates to only one part of one growth area. We are talking about 1.1 million dwellings in the wider south-east over the next 20 years, and probably three or four UDC statutory requirements will be needed to set them up. This is a very small percentage of the totality. Therefore, to say that the Deputy Prime Minister will control more than 1 million houses that will be built is over-egging the pudding.
I repeat: there are no surprises in the proposals. I draw the House's attention to the sustainable communities plan, which was published upfront with details of the way in which we intend to develop it. Therefore, we are operating the big picture. Not many people outside take an interest in the issue, other than those in the affected locality. Some journalists take an interest because they are watching what we do—and quite right too. But we are working to a plan. It operates differently in different parts of the country because in the market collapse—the pathfinder areas of the Midlands and the north—the issues are different. Nevertheless, huge amounts of money are available in order to bring in private sector development. That is the point that I want to make.
One area that we have discussed with our colleagues in local government is sustainable development and growth management. Without growth management, we shall get urban sprawl, despoliation of the countryside will occur and the cities will be uninhabitable. However, most of the investment in these areas will come from the private sector and not from the Government. Huge sums of money are involved. Part of the private sector investment will involve single bodies where decisions can be made. As I said, normal planning rules apply and normal consultation will take place, but with a different specified delivery vehicle in certain growth areas. That was why in the Milton Keynes area we agreed under the legislation an English Partnerships-led approach and not a UDC one. In that, the local authority has three out of a total of 10 places and the local partnership has three of the other

161
places, so the health service and probably the police will be involved. The private sector will also be advertising for a couple of the other places.
So it will be a tightly knit body for executive action that is overseen by an overall board looking at the subregion, with some 30 bodies represented on it, including the other local authorities. Therefore, there is no attempt whatever to snuff out local government in how we shall operate when developing the Sustainable Communities Plan. I say that upfront because it puts some of this in context. There is no secret about it. There will be other announcements in the foreseeable future about other delivery vehicles, some of which are even quicker than I might think. But they are all part of a plan. They are not hit and miss. They are all part of fitting in the building blocks in delivering the Sustainable Communities Plan.
I turn to the debate that we have just had. I must tell the House that from time to time I have to inform my colleagues in the other place that this House does not vote on Second Readings. Therefore, it is not always easy to test the water. However, when I return to the department I shall say that the Bill received a drubbing. I think that that is a fair assessment of the situation. That being so, I would normally try to go—and I know that giving a wind-up speech is old fashioned—through individual Members' speeches. That would be tedious tonight simply because, except for three speeches, every noble Lord made the same point.
I have a short list of issues that could have been raised for use in my wind up speech. One heading is "Democratic Deficit". I have written down the names of all the speakers except for the three noble Lords who did not refer to the county council issue. So, by and large, I make the point that I do not have to refer to everyone's speech: I have got the message.
I indicated something along these lines when I opened the debate and said that we hope to find a solution to this issue. It has been niggling us since we started and since we took over the proposals. Therefore, having got that off my chest and to show that I have been listening, I shall try to touch on some of the more specialist issues raised, about which I have a note and can give an answer. I hope that that will be useful. Therefore, I shall not, with apologies, refer to every noble Lord who has spoken.
Although I shall make a positive point on the issue of enforcement raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, it was very interesting when he said, "They waited for the right inspector to come along before they allowed the decision to go into the system". I suppose that that is not the first time that has happened. They probably do the same in the courts and wait for the judges. I do not know. I wrote down, "rigged decision".
I leave aside the fact that the issue of enforcement seemed to be that we need to build more prisons—I thought the consensus was to have fewer people in prison. The enforcement issue is being reviewed. It is a very serious issue. I know from my previous experience as a Member of Parliament that enforcement is very frustrating when things go wrong. One is virtually
162
powerless to do anything about it. The council officers would stand outside a couple of houses where one had been built over the eaves of another because they had gone over the boundary. They would ask, "Well, what are you going to do?" One would say, "We cannot do anything. It is all too late." Nothing happens. The frustration is unbelievable among citizens when that happens, especially when they have been consulted. So enforcement is being reviewed, as was indicated in the other place. We do take the issue extremely seriously.
On the issues relating to disability, I have a note which I hope will meet the points made both by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and my noble friend Lady Wilkins. I certainly take the point about how Section 106 might operate. The closing date for consultation is 8 January, which is two days away. It shows what a sad person I am, but I have read the whole consultation document word for word to understand the differences between Section 106 and the alternative for the charging mechanism. It is a compromise between what was originally planned and what the then Bill contained to see whether we could find a twin-track approach.
On disability, I shall share with the House that the top of my page says, "Disability (Possible concession)". I am not supposed to read that out. It also says:
"Disappointed with the tone taken",
but I do not want us to fall out tonight. My colleague in another place, Yvette Cooper, has had a number of meetings with, among others, the Disability Rights Commission to discuss the Bill and the coverage of access issues in PPSI. Those discussions are ongoing, although I do not think that anyone mentioned that.
We want the new system to ensure that local authorities promote an inclusive environment and give full consideration to the needs of those with disabilities throughout the planning system—and as early as possible in the process, before things are built. Obviously, it is much more cost-effective to do it that way.
There are issues concerning linking in the Bill, especially between Clause 38 and PPSI, to ensure that access is an issue in the development plan in the first place. The wider community and people with disabilities will have an early opportunity to influence the content of regional spatial strategies and local development documents, and therefore the development plan. That is backed up by Clause 107, which concerns planning aid. So that provides an avenue. That will enable planning aid to become much more proactive.
So issues of access and inclusion must be addressed in the plan. Local authorities must consult with the community so that the community can influence what is in the plan. They will be helped to get involved in the planning process with expert advice. We made some of those points clear in Committee in the other place.
Clause 42 introduces new powers to make an order. The powers are intended to introduce a standard application form for all local planning authorities. We want an access statement—something that demonstrates how the project will meet certain provisions of legislation

163
and related codes to ensure that the needs of people with disabilities are addressed—to be one of the documents to accompany the form in appropriate cases. That would mean that access would have to be considered—and to be shown to be considered—at the start of the application process. At present, officials in my department are working on the detail of how this might operate with the Disability Rights Commission, so I hope that in Committee we will be able to report in a little more detail on that matter.
Perhaps I may just knock the point about third party rights of appeal, which several noble Lords mentioned. I declare an interest: until 13 June last year I was the planning Minister, so I take some responsibility for the Bill, but until I became planning Minister, I was always in favour of third party rights of appeal. I have made that clear in the department: as a Member of the other House, I was definitely in favour of third party rights of appeal.
I have been influenced by argument and discussion—sometimes robust—in the department about the issue. I have changed my mind and can justify that. I shall not do that in great detail now, but I shall certainly be required to do so in Committee. One noble Lord asked today for a right of appeal for parties who seemed to me to be not third but involved parties. However, a right of appeal for third parties would indeed slow down the system and would be inconsistent with our democratically accountable system of planning.
Whatever the arguments about democracy, local district planning authorities are democratically elected. They make the initial decision. No one is arguing that there is no democracy in the system—well, I hope they are not. I know that there may be an argument about the counties and regions, but the planning authority that will make the decision is composed of elected councillors. So it would go against the grain if we allowed third party rights. There is a responsibility on local planning authorities to act in the public interest.
I have no doubt that we shall return to the issue. As I said, I had a lot of sympathy for third party rights of appeal—born out of my casework, I freely admit; there is nothing more to it than that—but we have not found a way to provide them, although we have looked for one. We tried to find a way for third party rights of appeal that were tightly limited in scope, but every time a draft was presented, we were warned by the lawyers and parliamentary counsel that if we went down that road, the chances are that we could snuff out any and every development. That is the risk; I shall raise that issue and another matter when I turn to Clause 38 and what my noble friend Lord Rogers said.
I must also make a point about Lewes. The noble Baroness criticised the Deputy Prime Minister for not knowing where it is and thinking it was in the north. I have visited Lewes recently. I attended one of the last meetings in the council chamber of Lewes, which I think has been moved from one place to another. I was pleased to sign the Government's partnership arrangement with Lewes council and its wider partners
164
for the delivery of services there. It was an enjoyable occasion. It was very positive from the point of view of the council and all its partners, including the police and the health authority, who have worked extremely hard on it. Of 105 partnership agreements, it is the only one that I have gone personally to sign. I went out of my way to go to Lewes, because I thought it was worth while going there. I hope that I have underlined that I am treating Lewes extremely seriously.
Along with many noble Lords, I was most taken by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rogers. He pointed out at the beginning of it that the city is the only mechanism for creating a sustainable form of living. Cities do not mean merely buildings lumped together, as he made clear. They also mean quality of life. He also pointed out that the density of build in this country is much too low to create sustainable development. It is probably the lowest building density in Europe. We do build at incredibly low densities.
We have attempted to involve the commission for the built environment in many of our projects. We have given it considerably more money and a new remit, which we expect the commission to use to beef up the design and quality of many developments across the country. I refer not merely to growth areas, but to some of the housing renewal pathfinders where we are trying to rebuild communities.
The noble Lord, Lord Rogers, raised an issue relating to outline planning permission. A Written Statement was made on 15 December in another place. I regret that I cannot remember if it was repeated in this House. It stated that Ministers are willing to consider the retention of outline planning permission,
"if it provided the opportunity for greater community involvement and a level of information which will enable local authorities to assess all the significant environmental impacts. To achieve that, developers would need to provide more information than is often the case at present… At the very least this would need to cover the key design principles, the density, the mix and distribution of uses, accessibility and the timescale for the development. I shall therefore be seeking the views of the development industry and local government before deciding whether to retain outline planning permission".—[Official Report, Commons. 15/12/03; co1.119–20WS]
We have been listening on that matter as the Bill has proceeded.
I turn to Clause 38, to which I briefly referred in my opening speech. Many Members referred to it. In Committee in another place, there was some acceptance of the argument that sustainable development is an evolving concept. I do not think that anybody would deny that. It was better defined in the guidance in PPS1. Most of the definitions that I have seen would be fine in guidance, but uncertain in legislation. At an early stage of the drafting of the Bill, before it was published in another place, there was an argument about including the clause in the Bill. We were faced with a choice of including words that mean nothing or providing a tighter definition. Our legal advice on the latter was that we could stifle developments around the country. It is a very fine line. We therefore chose the approach that is set out in the clause. We have not found an appropriate form of words. As this House scrutinises the Bill, as it is entitled to do and as we desire it to do, we might find a form of

165
words for Clause 38 that will meet the requirements both of the Government and of the sustainable communities plan, while not meeting with adverse comment from the lawyers. The wording is an incredibly difficult issue. I speak as a non-lawyer. The warning was given. We did ask at one point if it was worth bothering with the clause. There would have been an almighty row if we had taken out the clause and the concept and we would have had to provide reasons for it. It would be very difficult to do that. It is much easier to come forward now with a proposal that, although workable, does not meet everyone's desires, and explain why we have done it in that way, as I will do in detail in Committee.
The forthcoming draft of PPS1 will, in the next month, set out the following four objectives: sustainable development and economic development; social inclusion; protection of the environment; and prudent use of resources. Local planning authorities should seek, not to cherry-pick, but to develop outcomes that deliver across all four objectives.
The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, is the one noble Lord entitled to mention Stansted above all else, but air travel is essential to the economy. We cannot simply add to capacity regardless of environmental costs; it would be stupid and very damaging to try to do that. The Government have therefore endorsed a balanced approach that recognises the importance of aviation to the national and regional economies. The approach seeks to reduce and minimise the impact of airports on those who live nearby and on the natural environment and would ensure that, over time, aviation pays its external costs.
It is unfair to single out speeches, but I found that of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, the most helpful. He is not on my list of those who drubbed the issue, as he did not mention it. His speech was informative and highly practical in explaining what is wrong with the housing market in this country, which in some ways forces us in the wrong direction. That was extremely helpful. Like other noble Lords, he mentioned the interim review published by the Chancellor and provided to him by Kate Barker. We will have more from that when the Budget is announced.
I shall not refer in detail to what the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, said. I shall ensure that his point about retired people is looked into and shall write to him.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, raised the issue of mezzanine floors. We take the issue very seriously. We have tried to operate PPG6 on out-of-town shopping centres, for example, exactly as John Gummer left it after the change of policy in 1996. We have not changed it, but we have considered renewing the statement of clarification that we issued towards the end of last year.
166
We have operated the policy that the previous Conservative government introduced—to their great credit.
The snag is that, due to five-year limits on planning permission, many developers got planning permission for out-of-town centres but the bite came on them only in the past couple of years. Developers were coming along with new permission and claiming that the Government had changed the policy. We had not; we were trying—quite ruthlessly, if you like—to rebuild our city centres, with mixed communities of people living and working there. People are now seeking to get round the restriction by building mezzanine floors. Work is under way to examine the scale of the problem. I cannot say whether it is a matter for the Bill or other legislation, but we take it extremely seriously.
My noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton tells me that the biggest farmer in the country—the Co-op—is worried about the democratic issue of the countryside. I am well aware that the Co-op is the largest farmer in the country. I suppose that that means it gets more subsidies than anyone else—it must be the case. I shall ask my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister responsible for the Bill, Keith Hill, to read the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, word for word and then to understand why I shall nominate him as a candidate for the diplomatic corps. He gave the most sophisticated drubbing of the Bill without once uttering a word of criticism.
I have made a very inadequate winding-up speech. There is loads more to say, but I have gone well over the time that I had set myself. I have got the message; we are listening. As I indicated, there are areas on which we will provide proof that we have been listening, but it is just not possible to flag everything up at Second Reading. Woe betide me if I am not ready for Committee stage.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Fishery Limits (United Kingdom) Bill [H.L.]
8.25 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment he discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lady Saltoun of Abernethy.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past eight o'clock.

  Armagh: Schools
  Armagh: Schools
  Northern Ireland: Conservation
  Northern Ireland: Conservation
  Belfast and Moyle: Population
  Belfast and Moyle: Population
  Sudan: Human Rights
  Sudan: Human Rights
  Iraq: Captured Prisoners and British Indian Ocean Territory
  Iraq: Captured Prisoners and British Indian Ocean Territory
  Pakistan: Sharia Law in North West Frontier Province
  Pakistan: Sharia Law in North West Frontier Province
  Saddam Hussein
  Saddam Hussein
  Prisoners of War
  Prisoners of War
  Northern Cyprus: Parliamentary Election Results
  Northern Cyprus: Parliamentary Election Results
  Prisons: Workshop Instructors
  Prisons: Workshop Instructors
  Proscribed or Racist Organisations: CRE Investigations
  Proscribed or Racist Organisations: CRE Investigations
  Irish Republican Incidents
  Irish Republican Incidents
  Russia: Mutual Visa Arrangements with UK
  Russia: Mutual Visa Arrangements with UK
  Afghan Failed Asylum Seekers: Repatriation
  Afghan Failed Asylum Seekers: Repatriation
  Best Value Performance Plans: Audit Arrangements
  Best Value Performance Plans: Audit Arrangements
  Gulf War 1990–91: Vaccines
  Gulf War 1990–91: Vaccines
  United Kingdom Devolved Administrations
  United Kingdom Devolved Administrations
  Housing Benefit: Allerdale Borough Council
  Housing Benefit: Allerdale Borough Council
  Rent Allowance
  Rent Allowance
  Jobcentre Closures
  Jobcentre Closures
  Sports Clubs
  Sports Clubs
  Olympic Games 2012: London Bid
  Olympic Games 2012: London Bid
  M6 Toll
  M6 Toll
  Information Technology Strategy and UK Rankings
  Information Technology Strategy and UK Rankings
  Employment Tribunals
  Employment Tribunals
  Salmonella, E.coli and Listeria
  Salmonella, E.coli and Listeria
  Farming: Pilot Entry Level Schemes
  Farming: Pilot Entry Level Schemes
  Farming: Advice to Potential Entrants
  Farming: Advice to Potential Entrants
  Conservation of Natural Habitats: Consultation on Amendment Regulations
  Conservation of Natural Habitats: Consultation on Amendment Regulations

  Courts Martial: Implications of ECHR Judgment
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach)
  On 16 December 2003 the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in the cases of Cooper and Grieves. The two cases concerned whether trial by court martial in the United Kingdom, under the system in place since the coming into force of the Armed Forces Act 1996, was compatible with Article 6.1 of the convention.

  This Statement sets out the main findings of the court and the implications for the future conduct of courts martial.

  Mr Cooper was a serving member of the Royal Air Force (RAF). On 18 February 1998 he was convicted of theft by an Air Force district court martial (DCM). He was sentenced to 56 days' imprisonment, to be reduced to the ranks and dismissed from the service. The DCM comprised a permanent president, two other officers lower in rank and a civilian judge advocate.

  On 3 April 1998 the reviewing authority, having received advice from the Judge Advocate General, upheld the DCM's finding and sentence. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully to the Courts Martial Appeal Court (CMAC).

  The applicant took the case to the European Court, basing his case mainly on a decision of the European Court in Morris v UK (2002) that courts martial were non-compliant in certain respects relating to their composition and the practice of post-trial review (under which a conviction may be quashed or sentence reduced by a Service reviewing authority). In Cooper v the United Kingdom, the court unanimously overturned its decision in Morris and held that there had been no violation of Article 6.1 (right to a fair hearing and to an independent and impartial tribunal) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
  WS 6
  Mr Grieves was a member of the Royal Navy. On 18 June 1998 he was convicted by a Royal Navy court martial of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm. He was sentenced to three years' imprisonment, reduced in rank, dismissed from the service and ordered to pay £700 in compensation. The court martial comprised a president (a Royal Navy captain), four naval officers and a judge advocate, who was a serving naval officer and barrister.

  On 29 September 1998 the Admiralty Board, having received advice from the Judge Advocate of the Fleet (JAF), upheld the court martial's finding and sentence. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully to the CMAC.

  Mr Grieves took his case to the European Court. Part of his case was based on Morris. In addition he argued that the use of a serving naval officer as the judge advocate was non-compliant (in Army and RAF courts martial the judge advocates are civilians). In Grieves v the United Kingdom the court, as in Cooper, rejected the arguments based on Morris, but concluded that the use of serving naval officers as judge advocates in the Royal Navy did not provide a strong guarantee of the independence of naval courts martial. It thus held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6.1. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the court did not award the applicant any damages, but awarded him 8,000 euros for costs and expenses, less the amount received in legal aid.

  The system of discipline within the Armed Forces is a vital contribution to their operational effectiveness and their success, to which this House has so often paid tribute. It is clearly welcome that the European Court has ruled that, as a whole, the Service court martial system, with its safeguards to guarantee its independence and impartiality, is compliant with the ECHR. It is disappointing that the court concluded on the more limited point in the case of Mr Grieves that there was a violation under Article 6. As explained already this does not affect Army or RAF courts martial where the judge advocates are civilians.

  We are reviewing the implications of the details of judgment as a matter of urgency. On the issue of the appointment of uniformed judge advocates we have already concluded that their use should cease with immediate effect. Following legal advice, we have concluded that the judgment also requires the amendment of existing legislation to change the arrangements for the appointment of judge advocates in naval proceedings, as these appointments are made by a serving naval officer. We will shortly be putting a remedial order before both Houses for this purpose under Section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998. We aim to cause the minimum disruption to courts martial already scheduled in the new year, though some delay may be inevitable.

  Ground-based Air Defence Phase 1 Programme
  Lord Bach
  The Defence Procurement Agency has agreed contracts with European Aeronautic Defence Systems and Lockheed Martin for a three-year competitive assessment phase for the Ground-Based Air Defence Phase 1 Programme.

  The contracts will pave the way for low-risk incremental introduction of enhanced command and control capability to our GBAD forces as well as providing them with world-class situational awareness in the joint battlespace management environment. This capability will provide interoperability within the joint UK forces and with all of our principal allies, The combined value of the contracts is around £85 million

  WS 7
  and the work will be conducted in the UK, headed from offices in Havant and Bristol, with a significant proportion being sub-contracted to MBDA Missile Systems at Stevenage and Thales Air Defence Ltd in Belfast. The GBAD investment will not only start a process of considerable networked-enabled capability enhancement, but will support a wide variety of highly skilled jobs within the UK.

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority: Code of Practice
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner)
  The new edition of the Human, Fertilisation and. Embryology Authority's code of practice for infertility clinics has been approved and laid before Parliament today. Copies have been placed in the Library.