Sitting of 12 January 2004

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

    New Deal
    Mr. John Grogan: If he will make a statement on the future of the new deal programme. [146781]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith):The new deals have helped cut long-term unemployment by three quarters and guided nearly 1 million people into work, including 1,180 in my hon. Friend's constituency. We will build on the success of the new deals so that those who are unemployed or economically inactive receive the help that they need to get into a job, which will help Britain to achieve full employment in every region.
    Mr. Grogan: Will my right hon. Friend continue to develop the new deal programme, especially for lone parents and older people? In North Yorkshire, it has become the mark of a civilised society, helping to find jobs for almost all the county's long-term unemployed youth, many of whom previously thought that they had few prospects and little contribution to make.
    Mr. Smith: Indeed we shall develop the new deal. As my hon. Friend says, it is the mark of a civilised society, not only in North Yorkshire, where it has helped nearly 9,000 people into work, but throughout Great Britain. For the future, we need to ensure that it works even more effectively. We are therefore examining how we can introduce more consistent criteria for entry across different groups, more flexibility and responsiveness to the varying needs of individuals, and even closer partnership with the private and voluntary sectors locally, as well as introducing a new deal for skills by investing in employability and working closely with Business Link and the Learning and Skills Council.
    Mr. George Osborne: If the Secretary of State is right when he says that the new deal for young people has been such a success, why has the number of economically inactive young people—those who are neither working nor studying—risen in the five years since it was introduced?
    Mr. Smith: Our contention is that all the new deals have been a success. All those young people helped into jobs had wasted lives under the disastrous policies of the Conservatives, and to abandon the new deal would damage the lives of people who need help, harm the economy and bring back all the social ills of mass unemployment that the new deals and this Government's policies for economic stability have put behind us. The Conservatives should support those measures, including those to help inactive younger—and older—people.
    Mr. Roger Berry: I warmly welcome the comments of my right hon. Friend. He will no doubt be aware that 920 people in my constituency would be unemployed without the new deal. Is not the Tories' suggestion of scrapping the new deal a kick in the teeth for young people, lone parents and disabled people, and should not that policy be given that verdict in the strongest possible terms at every opportunity?
    Mr. Smith: Any proposal to abandon the new deal would be disastrous, not only for my hon. Friend's constituents but for the whole of our society. The programme has brought real benefits to individuals and to whole communities, so that we can put behind us the culture of hopelessness and welfare dependency that the Conservatives did so much to deepen—and as they would do again.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: I tabled a question on this issue last month and was told that the figures were available from the Library. I now have the figures and, from the inception of the new deal to September 2003, start-ups numbered 926,190. Of those, only 328,140 ended up in unsubsidised, sustained employment. How can the Secretary of State justify the new deal on those figures?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Lady belittles the considerable success that the figures that she quoted reveal. Of course, the programme has a wider and more enduring impact, including on those people who start a job and then leave it. The evidence shows that they are subsequently more likely to take another job. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research showed that the new deal saves the country £500 million a year in benefits to the economy and that the new deal for young people saves the Exchequer £40 million a year. As well as the human costs that the hon. Lady and her party would impose, their policies would have an economic cost for the country.

    Occupational Pension Schemes
    Derek Wyatt: If he will establish a public inquiry to assess the overall debts in occupational pension schemes; and if he will make a statement. [146782]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith): I am, of course, listening to the case made by my hon. Friend and other hon. Members who are campaigning energetically on behalf of their constituents. At present, however, I am not persuaded that a public inquiry would add to the extensive consultation on occupational pensions that has already been undertaken, including meeting those people affected by insolvent wind-up. As my hon. Friend knows, the Government are carefully considering the plight of those affected, while taking care not to raise false hope. We are taking action for the future by introducing new measures, such as the pension protection fund, to ensure that a pension promise made is a pension promise honoured.
    Mr. Wyatt: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but I must tell him that more than 120 Members have between 60,000 and 80,000 constituents whose occupational pensions are currently in deficit or in administration and, if we are not to have a public inquiry to find out the exact debt, how else are we to proceed? That is how we proceeded with the miners and the asbestos workers; that is how we do these things. Please, will my right hon. Friend think again?
    Mr. Smith: As I said, I am listening carefully to what my hon. Friend and others campaigning on the issue are saying. We are dealing with formidable and complex issues: how to differentiate those who might be eligible for help and those who are not; whether it is right to use the money of taxpayers, many of whom are not in occupational pension schemes, to help some who have lost out due to savings and occupational pension failures, but not others; the risk of raising expectations that the taxpayer is the ultimate guarantor of private pension and savings arrangements; and prejudging the outcome of legal action that has already been taken by some of those affected. Notwithstanding all that, we are looking at the issue carefully and I believe that to continue meeting those who are affected, including hon. Members, is the best way to proceed and, of course, the pensions Bill will be introduced.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: Is not the reality that the pensions industry is so finely balanced financially, despite the welcome recovery in the stock market, that there is a danger that the pension protection that the Government have in mind will take away assets from existing viable schemes and damage their viability without meeting the obligations of schemes that are, sadly, already insolvent?
    Mr. Smith: No, I do not accept that. By setting up arrangements that are a building block for greater security for the future, we are taking one step to rebuild confidence in pensions; there are a number of others that we need to take, and are taking. Without the same basis of insurance that operates everywhere else, we should be condemned—more important, workers in this country would be condemned—to repeat the awful experience at Allied Steel and Wire and of the other workers who have seen their schemes go under, which my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) was talking about.
    Kevin Brennan: I thank my right hon. Friend for mentioning ASW. Is he aware that early-day motion 200, in my name, has already attracted 180—as they say in darts—signatures? I am sure that, as more and more Members become aware of the motion, more and more of them will sign it, so is not it time for him to consider freezing all pension scheme wind-ups and requiring that those funds are used to pay pensions as they fall due, prior to the institution of a compensation scheme?
    Mr. Smith: I am not convinced that the course of action that my hon. Friend recommends is the right one. There is extensive concern, not merely in the House but throughout the country, especially among those suffering the awful anxiety of not knowing how they are to obtain their pension. My Department, my ministerial colleagues and I realise that there is an important responsibility, which is why we are looking at the matter very carefully indeed. However, it is only right that on each occasion that it is raised I point out that until or unless we can see a solution it would be wrong to raise false hope. We must all be able to look those workers in the eye so that they know that we have been honest with them all the way through.
    Mr. David Willetts: The Secretary of State says that he is not raising false hope, but he is raising no hope at all for anyone. Those people have lost all their savings; their pensions have been lost, as companies have had to wind up insolvent schemes. Does he accept that he has made the problems worse through his policies of taxing pensions, cutting the value of the minimum funding requirement twice and providing no legislation for compensation? Does he understand that that is why so many people who have lost everything in this crisis are so angry with him? Why will he not at least do as the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) requested and hold an inquiry so that we can establish the scale of the crisis and the cost of any measures necessary to tackle it?
    Mr. Smith: If I had proposed an inquiry today, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would attack me for kicking the issue into the long grass rather than taking action. I do not accept his assertion that the tax changes or the other steps that the Government have taken have made the situation worse. Responsibility for any failure in the legal or regulatory environment affecting such schemes lies with those who drafted and produced the Pensions Act 1995, and he should own up to that. Moreover, he attacked the abolition of the dividend tax credit. The Conservative party do not propose to reinstate it. Although he has indicated—I am grateful to him for this—that there could be a basis for all-party support for taking action, as have the Liberal Democrats, we have seen no specific proposals from him that would present an alternative to the course that the Government are pursuing.
    Mr. Willetts: The Government have cut the value of the minimum funding requirement twice, first by 10 per cent. and then by 8 per cent. The Secretary of State talked about kicking the ball into the long grass. Is he aware that the Government produced "Strengthening the Pensions Framework: a Consultation Document" in

    513
    December 1998, since when nothing has been done? Can he think of any other example, even under this Government, of a policy area where, five years after the consultation exercise was launched, still absolutely nothing has been done?
    Mr. Smith: It simply is not true to say that nothing has been done.
    Mr. Willetts: What have the Government done?
    Mr. Smith: Let me give a clear example. We have legislated so that there is a full buy-out requirement on those solvent companies who abandon their schemes. Not only have we undertaken the consultation to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but, as the Gracious Speech said, we will introduce legislation in this Session. I look forward to him and those in other parties supporting us constructively so that we build an enduring consensus for a new partnership, strongly supporting occupational pension provision and saving.
    Mr. David Watts: When the Ravenhead glass company went into liquidation, not only did people lose their jobs, they lost most of their pensions. That employer took a contribution holiday for three years. As part of any review, will my right hon. Friend look at the practice of companies taking contribution holidays to ensure that there are sufficient funds in pension schemes to deal with any downturn in the market?
    Mr. Smith: Yes indeed. I acknowledge the strength with which my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have represented their constituents on these important matters, and we are examining all the issues. Moreover, we are working closely with the employer task force on pensions that we established—which includes not only employer but trade union and academic representation—and, of course, work is being undertaken by the independent Pension Commission as well.
    Mr. Steve Webb: The Secretary of State and his Ministers have told us for month after month that they do not want to raise false hope among workers who have lost out. Is that not precisely what they are doing? In fact, is it not true that the Government will do precisely nothing, and take many months to do it? Those workers are hoping for a last-minute announcement that the Government will come up with something for them. Would it not have been more honest and generated less false hope to have told them that at the start?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman's remarks amount to an accusation that we should not take serious time and trouble to engage with the representations that are being made to us and to examine these issues very carefully. I have been absolutely honest in what the Government have done about this and will continue so to be, and he should be more responsible if he really wants cross-party agreement on how to move forward.
    Mr. George Foulkes: May I confirm that the Secretary of State and, particularly, the Minister for Pensions have been very sympathetic in listening to my constituents from Stoddard's Carpets and United Engineering Forgings who are affected? But sympathy does not pay the bills or solve the problems. Labour Members are interested in a solution, not in making political capital out of people's hardship. May I suggest a solution that, with respect, does not involve a public inquiry? Could the Secretary of State have a word with his very good Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I know that they are very good friends—and say that, if we can afford billions of pounds to compensate the farmers, we can find £100 million for those pensioners?
    Mr. Smith: I keep closely in touch with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on these and other matters, and I assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) that I appreciate the point that he makes. It is not sympathy that people want, but practical action. However, it would be folly to raise the expectation that we will be able to take that action until I am in a position to announce what it will be.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, before the House can decide what, if any, assistance can be given, we need to know the extent of the problem and its likely cost? That requires an urgent inquiry into these matters, not least because we will address the issue in a few weeks when the pension Bill is discussed.
    Mr. Smith: Those are precisely the issues that the Government have been looking into. When I am in a position to report to the House on the outcome of those inquiries and deliberations, I shall of course do so. However, I put it to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if we came here to put forward some sort of public inquiry, he, or at least some of his colleagues, would certainly be on their feet saying that it was a device to delay and not to address the problems.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: When my right hon. Friend considers the important question of contribution holidays, will he also look into those firms that have been increasing their prices beyond inflation and check how much of those increases was required to try to sustain the pension funds that those firms are committed to operating? That point applies to the electricity and gas industries as well as to local government.
    Mr. Smith: Yes, we can of course look at all these matters. However, those companies—whether they are utilities or firms operating in other sectors of the economy—that are taking action, and often difficult action involving difficult choices, to ensure that their occupational pension funds are properly provided for are taking action on behalf of the business community that we ought to commend. That is all the more the case when it is so often undertaken in consultation with the trade unions.

    Pensions (Payment)
    Mr. David Heath: How many pensioners currently use a pension book. [146785]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond): The number of pensioners using an order book is 5.3 million, about 500,000 fewer than the number receiving benefits and pensions direct into an account.
    Mr. Heath: That is 5.3 million pensioners who have chosen to use the order book and, if my constituency is anything to go by, many of them would like to continue to use their order books either for their own convenience or to support their local post offices. At the moment, when the Government contact them to ask them to change, they are given three options, but they are not told about the fourth option—the fourth way—which is the exceptions service. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us why that is and whether those who do not sign up for the alternatives before April 2005 will automatically be entered into the exceptions service so that they can continue to use their post office?
    Mr. Pond: The hon. Gentleman will realise that people are choosing direct payment of their own volition. Nine out of 10 pensioners already have an account into which their pensions or benefits could be paid, and the numbers moving to direct payment have been moving in that direction for some time. We are fully committed to the Post Office network, which is why we have invested £2 billion in it. We are also fully committed to saying to people that they can continue to receive their benefits and pensions on a weekly basis at the post office and to supporting the Post Office in extending the range of banking services available in its outlets. We are developing an exceptions service for the small minority of people whom we expect not be able to open or operate a bank account, and I am talking to the bodies that represent those groups to see how best we can design that service to ensure that everybody receives pensions and benefits when they are entitled to receive the payments.
    Mr. Brian Jenkins: Will my hon. Friend elaborate on his plans for delivering that service via his partner, the Post Office, when in my constituency and other urban areas, the Post Office proposes to close local outlets and make it impossible for anyone to get to them to claim their entitlement except by using a taxi? Does he intend to deliver it house to house as I suggest?
    Mr. Pond: I repeat to my hon. Friend that we are fully committed to making sure that there is a full and comprehensive network of Post Office outlets, and that is why we are making the investment—the £2 billion overall and the £450 million to ensure that we do not have unnecessary closures in rural areas. However, I have to say to him that requiring all our customers to continue, often against their own choice, to be paid by giro or by order book is the not the solution for the future of the Post Office network. We need to make sure that we can support the Post Office in its attempts to build links with financial services industries to ensure
    516
    that a wide range of financial services are available in post offices. That will be the future of the post office network, not the order book or giro.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I think that I heard the Minister say that just over 5 million pensioners receive their pensions by going to the post office whereas slightly more than that—I think that he said 6 million—do not. I do not understand how he can therefore say that 90 per cent. receive their pensions in the other way.
    Mr. Pond indicated dissent.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I am sorry, I have misunderstood the Minister. The Government are currently writing to people. Although I realise that they have probably written to only about 1.5 million pensioners, have not almost a third of them not replied? Is he taking it that those who have not replied are registering acquiescence or an objection? I mention that only because although I do not want to be patronising, elderly people sometimes get confused and fixed in their ways and thus need special consideration—and I declare an interest.
    Mr. Pond: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his humility in saying that some people can get confused and fixed in their ways. I shall clarify the situation for him. I said that 90 per cent. of pensioners already have a bank account that would be suitable for the receipt of pensions or benefits. In countries such as Holland and Australia, 99 per cent. of pensioners and others receive their payments directly into a bank account. I will not join him—if this is what he is suggesting—in saying that our pensioners are more likely to be confused or less able to operate a bank account than those in other countries. We recognise that a small proportion of pensioners and others will not be able to open or operate a bank account and we are ensuring that they will have an alternative service so that they can get their money on time with dignity and independence. I hope that he will join me in overcoming confusion among some pensioners and others about the idea that the only way to get their money at a post office is through the Post Office card account or an order book. A range of bank accounts is available at post offices, and the future of the Post Office partly depends on us getting that message across to people.

    Pension Credit (Watford)
    Claire Ward: How many pensioners in the Watford constituency are receiving pension credit. [146786]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): As at 31 December 2003, there were 2,364 households in the Watford constituency, comprising 2,735 individuals, receiving pension credit. That is a 31 per cent. increase over the number of recipients of minimum income guarantee in Watford, and the average payment is £48.65 per week, which is more than £7 more than that from minimum income guarantee claimed.
    Claire Ward: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I am pleased to hear that there has been an increase in

    517
    take-up, but does she agree that it is likely that a number of pensioners in my constituency are still not accessing pension credit? What can she and her Department do to encourage pensioners in Watford and throughout the country to take up the pension credit?
    Maria Eagle: As my hon. Friend knows, we have undertaken a range of activities to encourage people to take up their entitlement. The latest customer satisfaction survey on our pension credit application line shows that 90 per cent. of those who contact us are satisfied with the application process and that 80 per cent. find the application form clear to understand. The key thing is to get those who might be eligible to pick up the phone and make contact with us. I know that my hon. Friend is active in that respect, which is shown by figures illustrating the increasing numbers of people taking up pension credit in her constituency. All that I can do is urge her constituents—and anyone's constituents—who think that they might be eligible to pick up the phone and call us. We have already received 1.84 million calls to the application line and there is a high level of satisfaction with the service that it offers. I urge anyone who might be eligible to pick up the phone and apply for pension credit because the money to which they are entitled is theirs.

    Pension Service
    Mr. Bill Wiggin: Whether all pensioners who request a home visit from the Pension Service will receive one. [146787]
    The Minister for Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): Where someone requires a home visit, we aim to provide one. Pensioners will have that option, but in reality the vast majority of queries will be dealt with swiftly and effectively without the need for a home visit, usually on the telephone. I am pleased to report that latest figures show that in Hereford, which of course covers the hon. Gentleman's constituency, 2,621 visits were made to elderly people in the period January to October last year and an impressive total of 270,000 visits have been made nation wide by our local pension services.
    Mr. Wiggin: That does not cover my constituents who live in Worcestershire. Why did the head of the Pension Service say:
    "We are not building a model which is actually showing that anyone can just choose to have a home visit"?
    How could she be so wrong?
    Malcolm Wicks: If the hon. Gentleman has evidence—not conjecture—that people are not getting a home visit, he should write to me and I will ensure that elderly people get such a visit. As I said, the principle is clear: if people want a home visit, they will get one. The fact that 270,000 home visits have been made—I think that that figure will surprise hon. Members on both sides of the House—shows that the arrangement is working and is an important part of the Pension Service.
    Ms Sally Keeble: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Pension Service in Northampton on its outstanding work, not just on home visits, but with voluntary organisations,
    518
    including Age Concern, to target the small groups in need and to ensure that pensioners receive their pension credit? I know that he is aware of the particular problem in Northampton with the interpretation of the housing benefit rule and its impact on those in receipt of pension credit. What is he doing to clarify that specific issue?
    Malcolm Wicks: I much enjoyed my visit to my hon. Friend's constituency the other day, including talking to the local Pension Service and elderly people. The principle for those on pension credit with a guaranteed element is that they have full access to housing benefit and council tax benefit. The fact that some receive just the savings credit element is taken into account with regard to pension credit. Overall, however, people are gainers as a result of pension credit.
    I thank my hon. Friend her for her kind words about the Pension Service. Most hon. Members want to back public service rather than get on the back of public servants who are doing a good job.

    Pension Credit
    Mr. David Stewart: What plans his Department has to increase the take-up of pension credit. [146788]
    Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: What estimate he has made of the (a) number and (b) percentage of people who will be claiming pension credit by 2006. [146790]
    The Minister for Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): We have a take-up target for at least 3 million households to be in receipt of pension credit by 2006. This corresponds to around 3.7 million individuals, but we want all eligible pensioners to take up their entitlement.
    I am pleased to report that 2.53 million individuals now receive pension credit. That includes approximately 486,000 individuals who were not previously receiving income support minimum income guarantee who are now receiving extra money for the first time. We have today published the latest monthly pension credit progress report, including numbers of recipient households in each parliamentary constituency in Great Britain.
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is well aware that the two main barriers to claiming pension credit are stigma and an over-complicated claims procedure. What further steps is he planning to ensure that every last penny of pension credit is fighting pensioner poverty?
    Malcolm Wicks: We are aware of the traditional barriers to means-tested benefits. That is why we made the application process for pension credit easy and focused on the needs of the citizen. We monitor progress carefully and published results of our customer service inquiry today. It finds that 80 per cent. of respondents were satisfied with the pension credit application line and 90 per cent. were satisfied with the overall process. I am pleased to report that 96 per cent. of telephone calls from members of the public are answered within 30

    519
    seconds. We analyse the barriers and seek to overcome them through a pension credit that is a million miles away from the old style means-testing.
    Mr. Djanogly: I notice that the Minister did not answer my question and give the figures for 2006. Is not it the case that by subjecting more than half of pensioners, which is what the figure is likely to be, to means-tested state dependency, the Government will destroy the incentive for working people to save?
    Malcolm Wicks: Contrary to the hon. Gentleman's analysis, the pension credit rewards savings for the first time while targeting extra resources on the poorest pensioners and the hard-pressed, two thirds of whom are women, and many of whom are the older elderly. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the fact that now, in the early days of pension credit, 1.7 million people are gaining financially from the measure, including a significant number in his constituency.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: When disabled pensioners have a problem with pension credit or any other aspect of their dealings with the Pension Service, they sometimes go to DIAL, the disability information and advice line, for help. Whereas Age Concern and citizens advice bureaux have dedicated hotline arrangements with the Pension Service, my understanding is that DIAL does not. Will the Minister look into that and try to arrange a hotline service for DIAL? That would help disabled pensioners and might even cut the number of home visits that are necessary.
    Malcolm Wicks: I shall certainly consider that suggestion. Our aim is to provide a number of ways for elderly people or their carers to access pension credit. They usually use the telephone, but if they prefer, they can fill in the application form, with which they can get help, visit an advice surgery or have a home visit.
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: Is it not true that, according to the research published by the Department, only 22 per cent. of the higher income group who were asked, and 12 per cent. of the lower income group, had even heard of the pension credit? Is it any wonder then that, even on the Minister's projections, 1.4 million of the poorest pensioners will never be helped by pension credit because they will be deterred from claiming by the complexity or the intrusive means-testing, or both?
    Malcolm WicksI reject those figures. We have takeup targets for 2006, and yet I have said that our aim is to ensure that every elderly person entitled to the credit should receive it. We are rolling out pension credit over a period, which is sensible administratively, and we still have not written to some people; we will not write to some of them until June. However, anyone applying up to autumn this year will be able to get pension credit from last October.
    This is a successful piece of public administration and a decent, targeted social policy, presided over by an excellent new public service, and I hope that people in the House of Commons will start to support the pension credit,instead of denigrating it.
    Mr. Peter Pike: I recognise that the Government are doing everything possible to ensure that people eligible for pension credit get it, but I am sure that the Minister will recognise that almost half a million people were not receiving the minimum income guarantee despite being entitled to it. I realise that correspondence is scanned at Pension Service centres, but does the Minister accept that many pensioners—one came to me last week—find it confusing to receive letters from different officers in the service, because they do not understand who is dealing with their case?
    Malcolm Wicks: If my hon. Friend writes to me with details, I will look at any difficulties. The fact that, in the early days of pension credit, so many people are already gaining is a remarkable testament to our Pension Service. When we enable people, some of whom never applied for the old minimum income guarantee, to apply for pension credit, we often find that we can also access their claims to housing benefit or council tax benefit, and as a result, although the average weekly gain might be £7 or £8, we find many cases of people getting £30, £40 or £60 extra as a result of the human touch used by our local Pension Service.
    Mr. Michael Weir: The Minister mentioned his written statement to be published today which gives a breakdown of take-up by constituency, but what is missing is a breakdown of the targets for each constituency or, indeed, for Scotland as a whole. Will he publish those figures? Given the fact that most hon. Members are already urging all pensioners to take up their entitlement, does he feel that the Government need to be more proactive in encouraging those to whom we are not getting through, rather than simply calling on them to pick up the phone? A large number of pensioners will never apply for the credit by telephone.
    Malcolm Wicks: We published estimates of entitlement for Scotland, Wales and the regions of England. Methodologically and statistically, it would not be easy to do the same, with precision, for constituencies, but I will look into that.
    I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman thinks that we are not trying hard enough. I should have though that our excellent Pension Service running advice surgeries in every constituency and making 270,000 home visits shows that our public servants are trying very hard—and not only trying but being successful.

    Housing Benefit
    Gareth Thomas: What progress has been made in reforming housing benefit. [146789]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond): Our major structural reform, the local housing allowance, has been introduced today in the private rented sector in Coventry and Teignbridge, having already started in Blackpool and Lewisham. In the remaining five pathfinder areas—including Conwy, which covers part of my hon. Friend's constituency—it will begin in the next few weeks. The aim of the reforms is to create a

    521
    simpler, fairer system that puts real choice and responsibility in tenants' hands—one that supports work and cuts the risk of fraud.
    Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend is right to say that the reforms will be introduced in my constituency, where it is believed that they will enable claims to be dealt with rather more speedily and fairly, as well as bear down on exploitation by some landlords. When do the Government intend to introduce the reforms in the social housing sector?
    Mr. Pond: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Already in Conwy and other areas, considerable progress has been made in administering housing benefit, in part as a result of the extra investment that we are putting in to help local authorities to administer the system as it currently operates. We wish to extend the reforms to the social rented sector, because we believe that people in that sector should benefit in the same way from the choice and extra flexibility that the reforms can give, but we have to be mindful of the need to wait for further rent restructuring and increased choice in that sector before doing so. We are seriously considering the design of a scheme for the social rented sector, and we shall consult in the not-too-distant future on how to move ahead.
    Sir Archy Kirkwood: That was an interesting answer about the social rented sector, given that in their response to a Social Security Advisory Committee report the Government appeared to suggest that they were seeking a pilot or pathfinder project to test the idea. Is that the case? If so, how close are the Government to establishing a test? How on earth can the Department expect the market to be injected into the social rented sector when there is no ability to shop around?
    Mr. Pond: We certainly want to pilot the scheme first—we would not move ahead in the social sector without first making sure that the design is appropriate and that people are getting extra choice and are not worse off as a result. We are carefully considering how to move ahead in the social sector, because we recognise that circumstances in that sector are very different from those in the private rented sector. The reforms must go hand in hand with increasing choice in rents in the social sector and with conditions in which rents reflect much more closely the quality, standard and size of accommodation available.
    Mr. Frank Field: Part of the Government's reforms on housing benefit is to consider taking housing benefit away from neighbours from hell. Will the Minister confirm that in the responses to the consultation, the people who write about the issue are against the reform, whereas the people who are on the receiving end of the behaviour of neighbours from hell have all submitted evidence asking for sanctions to be imposed? When the Government make up their mind on the matter, will he weight the evidence in favour of those who are on the receiving end, not of those who merely write about the issue?
    Mr. Pond: My right hon. Friend has been a vigorous campaigner, not only on the use of housing benefit
    522
    sanctions, but on the full range of other measures that are necessary to deal with loutish and antisocial behaviour. He knows that the consultation ended in August. We are still considering the responses to it, but it is fair to confirm that those who are directly affected by antisocial behaviour want us to use every weapon that is practically available to us. We are considering whether removal of housing benefit is a weapon that we could give to local authorities to use in appropriate circumstances.
    Mr. Paul Goodman: Following the question asked by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), in May 2002, the Prime Minister told the House that housing benefit should be withdrawn from people whose antisocial behaviour is persistent. More than one and a half years later, however, all those people are still drawing housing benefit. Does the Minister not concede that on housing benefit withdrawal, spinning tough measures but not delivering them accurately describes the "totality" of the Prime Minister's intentions?
    Mr. Pond: The hon. Gentleman has clearly not been paying attention to what is happening in the Chamber. We have both discussed at length and implemented a full range of measures on antisocial behaviour, showing the Government's commitment to dealing with a problem that affects almost every constituency. We are consulting—if we were not consulting properly on such a measure, the hon. Gentleman would be at the Dispatch Box criticising us for not having thought carefully about whether it was a practical measure that could work and make a genuine contribution along with our other measures on antisocial behaviour. If we are convinced that it can do so, we shall go ahead with it.
    Lawrie Quinn: Given the Government's aim of reducing housing benefit fraud significantly by 2006, can the Minister tell us how well the partnerships are working with local authorities to reduce housing benefit fraud to £250 million a year?
    Mr. Pond: We have tough targets on dealing with housing benefit fraud, as my hon. Friend knows, and aim to reduce it by a quarter by 2006. Our partnerships with local authorities are working very effectively indeed. Both local government and central Government, as represented by the Department for Work and Pensions, are determined to do everything possible to stamp out housing benefit fraud, mindful of the fact that taxpayers' money is involved, and the taxpayer requires that benefit is paid to people who are entitled to it and not others. I am not suggesting that there is not more to do—there is clearly a lot more that we can, should and will do to tackle housing benefit fraud.

    Long-term Unemployment
    Mr. Mark Prisk: What assessment his Department has made of work opportunities for the long-term unemployed in the private sector in 2004. [146791]
    The Minister for Work (Mr. Desmond Browne): The Government's active labour market policies continue to ensure that people can take advantage of the many new job opportunities that are coming up all the time. That is especially true of the most disadvantaged, such as the long-term unemployed. Since 1997, employment has grown to record levels, and by well over a million in the private sector. Since 1997, long-term unemployment has fallen by about 75 per cent, to its lowest level since the 1970s. Indeed, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, it has fallen by 79 per cent.
    Mr. Prisk: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. However, the CBI has said that two out of three jobs created this year will be in the public sector, and that that trend is unsustainable. Does he agree?
    Mr. Browne: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He will know of the longstanding convention under which the Department does not forecast levels of employment or unemployment. Indeed, that convention was observed by previous Governments too. Most outside forecasters, however, including the OECD, expect a pick-up in economic growth in 2004, with the labour market remaining strong in all sectors.
    David Winnick: While I recognise that the long-term unemployed should certainly be encouraged into jobs, will my hon. Friend give a firm pledge on an issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and I raised two years ago with the Prime Minister, and assure us that the severely disabled will not be subject to frequent testing when it is clear that they are not in position to take jobs?
    Mr. Browne: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I am sure that he knows, because he has long taken a keen interest in the development of Government policy on inactive benefits, that they are received by a wide range of people. He will know of the development of our pathways to work policy and that even in the pilots for that scheme engagement is voluntary. That policy clearly demonstrates that the Government's policy is entirely consistent with his expectations.

    Final Salary Pension Scheme
    Angela Watkinson: What measures will be taken to address the problems surrounding the closure of final salary pension schemes. [146792]
    Mr. James Clappison: What plans he has to protect the pensions of past and present members of final salary pension schemes. [146795]
    The Minister for Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): Improving protection for members of final salary pension schemes is a Government priority. Through new legislation and, in particular, the pension protection fund, we are taking action to ensure that a pension promise made is a pension promise honoured. The pension protection fund will be introduced in the forthcoming pensions Bill.
    Angela Watkinson: I thank the Minister for that response. What specific hope can he give to my
    524
    constituent, Mr. Clothier, a former employee of Bradstock? Bradstock's pension scheme was terminated by a commutation prior to insolvency and was extremely underfunded, and Mr. Clothier finds that the product of 19 years of contributions will barely cover his council tax.
    Malcolm Wicks: Having met many workers in that kind of situation, I have a clear understanding of the heartbreak and impact on health and family life that can be occasioned by that kind of disaster for individuals. We had a full airing of this issue when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State took not dissimilar questions on the matter, and I cannot add to what he said on that occasion. While there is an issue about the present, at least we now have a Government who, by legislating for a protection fund, will ensure that that kind of scandal never occurs again in Great Britain.
    Mr. Clappison: May I take the Minister on to another aspect of final salary insolvencies and the future in such cases? Does he agree—perhaps he will do so in the light of the experience that he has just described—that one of the most distressing features of such insolvencies is that workers who have lost all their pension rights were in many cases very close to retirement age and had accumulated substantial pension rights? I know that the Government have been consulting on the question of the priority order in winding-ups. When will some action be taken on the matter?
    Malcolm Wicks: We have been consulting on the important issue, which the hon. Gentleman brings to the House's attention, of the priority order. We think that the existing priority order is unfair, not least to that group of workers whom he mentioned, some of whom I have met, who are just about to approach retirement age and who lose out under the current scheme. That is why we will take action. When we have formulated proposals, we will bring them to the House.
    Mr. Bill Tynan: While I welcome the pension protection fund, my hon. Friend the Minister has indicated that the Government are currently considering proposals. Will he bring those proposals to the Floor of the House as soon as possible, because the pension protection fund will do nothing for the individuals in my constituency who have lost their occupational pension scheme? Will he also accept that the Conservative party has selective amnesia when it talks about the—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not go into that.
    Malcolm Wicks: Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will try to forget the remarks that my hon. Friend has just made. As I said, our proposals on the priority order will come to the House. As we discussed earlier, however, in the questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, we are listening to all suggestions about how we can tackle immediate problems. It must be repeated again, however, that it would be wrong to offer false hope in what is a complex situation at which we are looking carefully.

    Departmental Restructuring (East Anglia)
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: When he next expects to meet representatives of staff in his Department's East Anglia offices to discuss restructuring plans. [146793]
    The Minister for Work (Mr. Desmond Browne): Jobcentre Plus and the Pension Service are modernising the services that we provide to our customers, including those in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. They are providing improved customer access through telephone centres, the internet and new, dedicated caller offices—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) should not be reading a book in the Chamber.
    Mr. James Gray: Sorry, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Browne: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ministerial colleagues and I meet the Department's trade union representatives from time to time. Managers and union representatives at all levels meet routinely to discuss the development of the new services.
    Mr. Bellingham: I thank the Minister for that reply, but it was a slightly complacent one. Is he aware that the roll-out of Jobcentre Plus in my constituency has led to many changes, with the co-location of the social security and jobcentre functions at Lovell House? Furthermore, many staff have been relocated to jobcentres elsewhere, which has led to a great deal of disruption and stress to individuals. Morale is proving difficult to manage, yet local management are doing their level best to keep up morale. What will he do to try to help with that process?
    Mr. Browne: The development of Jobcentre Plus in the hon. Gentleman's constituency is, of course, part of a significant investment in that service. He is right that in King's Lynn the customer-facing services, as they are known, are being brought to one site—Lovell House—which is just round the corner from the Priory House social security office, which will continue to employ a significant number of people processing benefit applications. Of course, there will be no redundancies in his constituency as a consequence of that.
    The hon. Gentleman accuses me of complacency. To my knowledge the local management have offered him two opportunities to go and discuss these issues with them, and he has been unable to keep either appointment.

    Child Poverty
    Chris Bryant: What assessment he has made of how progress in tackling child poverty in the UK compares with developments in other European Union member states. [146794]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith): In 1997, the UK had a higher proportion of children living in low-income households
    526
    than any other EU member state. Since then the UK has made substantial progress, narrowing the gap between the UK and EU averages from 8 percentage points in 1997 to 5 percentage points in 2001, and moving up the EU league table. The extra spending announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his pre-Budget report will enable us to achieve still more as we tackle child poverty.
    Chris Bryant: As my right hon. Friend will know, everyone is delighted that we have stopped languishing at the bottom of the league, but we are still only 11th: we are still falling behind the whole of Scandinavia, France, Germany and Greece. There is much on the agenda that will change that, but do we still need to learn lessons from our European Union colleagues?
    Mr. Smith: As I have said, we had already made good progress by 2001, and I am confident that the other steps we have taken—not least the increase of £3.50 a week in the child element of the tax credit, benefiting more than 7 million poor children—will enable us to make further progress.
    Of course we can learn from other European countries, just as they have much to learn from us about labour market flexibility. Social solidarity and fellow feeling for all citizens in our country—the feeling that poverty, particularly child poverty, is an evil that must be eliminated—should mobilise public opinion not just among those who support our party, but among those who support all parties in the House.
    Ms Gisela Stuart: What assessment he has made of progress in reducing child poverty. [146797]
    Hugh Bayley: What progress the Government has made in reducing the number of children living in poverty; and what measures it will take to reduce it further. [146799]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond): As a result of our policies, there are now half a million fewer children living on relatively low incomes than in 1997. Had we done nothing, a million and a half more children would have been in poverty. We are on course to meet our target to reduce the number of children in low-income households by a quarter by 2004–05.
    Ms Stuart: Can the Minister give us some idea of how many parents with care will benefit from the child maintenance premium?
    Mr. Pond: As my hon. Friend knows, our child support reforms have led to a considerable increase in the number of parents with care who receive the premium. The figures are available in the Library—[Interruption]—but no, not in my briefing.
    My hon. Friend also knows that the purpose of the reforms is to make a real contribution to the meeting of our target for dealing with child poverty.
    Hugh Bayley: When does the Department intend to spend the extra £1 billion announced in the pre-Budget

    527
    report on measures to reduce child poverty? What impact does he think those extra measures will have in reducing the number of children living in poverty?
    Mr. Pond: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already mentioned the £3.50 increase in the child element of the tax credit, which will benefit more than 7 million children. That means that total spending on financial support for children will have increased by £10 billion in real terms since 1997, which we expect to help us achieve our public service agreement target of reducing the number of children in low-income households by a quarter by 2004–05.

    Child Care
    Jeff Ennis: What plans he has to provide child care in schools to help people to move from welfare into work. [146800]
    The Minister for Work (Mr. Desmond Browne): The extended schools programme is putting schools at the heart of their communities. Schools are taking the opportunity to provide a range of services and activities, such as child care, to help meet the needs of pupils, their families and local people.
    Two hundred and forty extended schools will be funded over the next three years, including at least one in every local education authority. They will deliver an
    528
    expansion of school-based child care to make it easier for those with caring responsibilities, particularly lone parents, to move into work.
    Jeff Ennis: Is the Minister aware that last Friday I attended the opening of The Willows, the new neighbourhood nursery unit attached to Willowgarth high school in Grimethorpe in my constituency, which is providing not only a full range of day care services to the local community but child care opportunities for year 10 and year 11 students at the school? Does he agree that such facilities and initiatives can make a real difference to disadvantaged communities such as Grimethorpe?
    Mr. Browne: I was not aware that my hon. Friend had visited that facility, but I am pleased that he and other hon. Members on both sides of the House support the significant development of child care across the country. He is right to identify the importance of child care to our aspirations in terms of employment. That is why, in addition to the existing and planned investment to expand child care, which since 1997 has created over 800,000 new child care places, helping over 1.4 million children to access child care, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently announced three pilots in Bradford, Lewisham and Haringey for further child care places specifically to help lone parents back into work.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is bound to be concern over the situation in Amara, Iraq, where six Iraqis were shot dead, five by Iraqi police and one apparently by British soldiers. No one doubts that the circumstances must have been very difficult, but I wonder whether you can advise what can be done to arrange for a Minister to come here to explain what happened. We know that in Saddam's Iraq there were no demonstrations, and that if there were, there would have been mass shootings, but as we have responsibility now there should be a statement as quickly as possible by the appropriate Minister, and I would be pleased if you would advise accordingly.
Mr. Speaker: The Minister concerned will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has had to say on that matter.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is well known to the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) and I take very different views in general on what happened in Iraq, but on this matter surely we are united on the principle that when British troops are in action, whatever the circumstances—and none of us will rush to judgment—the House of Commons should be told what has happened.
Mr. Speaker: As I have said before, I only have the powers that the House has given me. I also say to the Father of the House that the Minister concerned will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has had to say, and it is now on the record.

BILLS PRESENTED
  FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES
  Mr. Secretary Prescott, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Blunkett, Mr. Secretary Darling, Mr. Secretary Reid, Mr. Secretary Hoon, Ms Secretary Hewitt, Mr. Peter Hain, Mr. Nick Raynsford and Phil Hope, presented a Bill to make provision about fire and rescue authorities and their functions; to make provision about employment by, and powers of employees of, fire and rescue authorities; to make provision about education and training and pension schemes; to make provision about the supply of water; to make provision about false alarms of fire; to provide for the funding of advisory bodies; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 38].
  CRIMINAL JUSTICE (JUSTIFIABLE CONDUCT)
  Mr. Roger Gale, supported by Mr. Eric Forth, Mr. Peter Atkinson, Mr. Richard Bacon, Mr. Julian Brazier, Derek Conway, Mr. Gerald Howarth, Mrs. Eleanor Laing, Richard Ottaway, Mr. Andrew Turner, Ann Winterton and Sir Nicholas Winterton, presented a Bill to amend the law of England and Wales by making provision for exempting from civil and criminal liability in specified circumstances persons acting in defence of persons or property: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 30 April, and to be printed [Bill 36].
  CIVIL SERVICE
  Mr. Oliver Heald, supported by Mr. Michael Howard, David Davis, Mr. Alan Duncan, Mr. Nicholas Soames and David Maclean, presented a Bill to make provision with regard to the Civil Service; to establish a Civil Service Commission; to make provision for and in connection with the removal of general restrictions as to nationality which apply to persons employed or holding office in any civil capacity under the Crown; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 30 January, and to be printed [Bill 37].
Orders of the Day

  Housing Bill
  [Relevant documents: The Tenth Report from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Committee, Session 2002–03, HC 751-I, on the Draft Housing Bill, and the Government's response thereto, Cm 6000.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  3.34 pm
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. The Bill was published on 8 December. It will help to create a fairer and better housing market and to protect the most vulnerable in housing. Together with other Government measures on housing and planning, it will make a major contribution to achieving the aims of the sustainable communities plan. The Bill is big in vision, scope and size. In that respect, it has similarities to the Housing Act 1996, which was taken through Parliament by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). I take this opportunity to extend my personal welcome to the right hon. Gentleman in his new role as shadow Secretary of State for local and devolved government affairs.
  Early last year, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister set out the Government's vision for sustainable communities. In that statement, he recognised candidly that for more than 30 years, all Governments had failed to meet housing need. In particular, Government investment in housing declined significantly during the 1990s, leading to an increase in social housing disrepair compared with the rest of the housing stock. As a consequence, in 1997, the Government inherited a colossal backlog of £19 billion in social housing repairs, and a declining number of newly built homes. More than 2 million homes in the social sector were substandard, and there were similar problems in the private sector.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Why are local authorities such as New Forest district council not being allowed to spend their housing budget on desperately needed new houses, but are required by the Minister's imposed policy to deploy that budget on repairs, despite the fact that their stock is in good condition? That policy might be appropriate to northern metropolitan boroughs with a history of neglect, but it is not in the south-east. Will he be more flexible?
  Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman ought to be aware that opportunities for the new build of social housing are afforded by funding streams other than those through local authorities. As I shall explain, I make no apology for focusing the spending of a local authority on significant housing disrepair where that remains.
  We responded to the challenge of disrepair with large-scale additional resources. We trebled council funding for homes from £750 million in 1997 to about £2.5
  532
  billion this year. Choices had to be made—we could not deal with everything at once—so in 1998 the new Government made tackling disrepair our top priority. We did so because we believed that it would benefit the greatest number of people and would make the biggest difference most quickly. It also prevented the further loss of stock. Accordingly, we introduced the decent homes standard for homes that are properly weather-proofed with central heating and modern bathrooms and kitchens. The approach is now showing results.
  This year, we shall have reduced the number of substandard homes by about 1 million since 1997. We are making good progress and we aim to ensure that all social housing tenants will enjoy the decent homes standards by 2010. In other words, we shall have completed the huge task of bringing nearly 2£5 million substandard homes up to the decent homes standard by that date.
  Funding for new social housing, through the Housing Corporation's approved development programme, also declined through the 1990s. The spending review of 2000 reversed that decline. Investment in new social housing will increase still further, to about £5 billion, over the three years from 2003–04—double the level that we inherited in 1997.
  Mr. James Gray: I am glad to hear that the Government have plans to start building some houses in the future. How does the Minister account for the fact that in the last six years of the Conservative Government, we built an average of 31,274 houses per annum, while during the first six years of this Government, the figure was 18,000?
  Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman ought to bear in mind the fact that in that period, funding for social housing new build declined by half—a decline that we are now putting right. We took a clear decision that the priority needed to be dealing with the colossal £19 billion backlog of refurbishment and modernisation of social housing stock. We are now investing seriously in the building of new social housing, but there are problems, as I shall explain. There will always be a need for new houses everywhere, and we want that need to be met, but new build housing on the largest scale is required only in certain parts of the country.
  That is why the Housing Corporation's approved development programme is increasingly targeted at the areas that need it most: London and the south-east. I have to tell the House, and the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), that the blunt truth is that those areas are also the areas of highest cost generally and of mounting construction and land costs, which means that the number of housing units completed for any given input has tended to decline.
  Nevertheless, we are resolved to accelerate new building where it is most needed. The sustainable communities plan, published in February 2003, announced the development of four growth areas in London and the wider south-east, which have the potential to deliver an extra 200,000 homes over the next 10 to 15 years. Affordable housing is a key part of that development.
  Jeremy Corbyn: The Minister will recognise, as I do, the enormous need for more social housing in London. Is he prepared to introduce legislation or amend the Bill to ensure that 50 per cent. of all developments are for social housing developments? Will he also prevent local authorities and public corporations from selling off existing buildings and land that could be used to meet the terrible housing crisis that many of poorest people in London face?
  Keith Hill: I know that my hon. Friend has a long-standing and distinguished record for expressing concern about housing issues. I have to tell him that the Government have set out indicative guidelines on the proportion of social housing that we expect to be delivered in any major housing development. He will also be aware that for large-scale housing developments, the Mayor has laid down clear criteria that are, in most cases, being fulfilled. We are happy about that, but it is essentially a matter for local authorities and for local decision-making. We want to encourage local authorities to respond to the challenges in a way that best meets the needs of local communities.
  I want to make some progress. The communities plan sets out the policies, resources and partnerships necessary to deliver a new approach to how and what we build—an approach that connects housing with transport, jobs, public services and improving the local environment. However, the communities plan goes wider than the particular challenges of the south-east: it represents a step change in our approach to development, in order to deliver decent affordable homes and a good quality local environment in all regions. It aims to tackle the challenges of rapid demographic and economic change, the legacy of poor health and conditions, serious housing shortages in areas of high demand, and the impact of housing abandonment in places, in the north and midlands.
  We are continuing to find other ways of increasing housing supply and securing better value for money. For example, we are encouraging modern methods of construction and widening the scope of those who can receive Housing Corporation funding.
  Ms Joan Walley Ms Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent, North) (Lab)
  rose—
  Mr. Anthony Steen Mr. Anthony Steen (Totnes) (Con) rose—
  Mr. Michael Jack Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde) (Con) rose—
  Keith Hill: I give way to my hon. Friend, whom I noticed first.
  Ms Walley: On that point, does the Minister agree that the current research in north Staffordshire, which is about using the most up-to-date and sustainable construction methods, will be essential to deliver his agenda? Does he agree that Burslem urgently needs funding from Advantage West Midlands to construct a construction skills centre? There is a real fear that the money will not be available in this financial year. If it is not, it could undermine the Government's intention to have a new construction skills centre there as quickly as possible.
  Keith Hill: I am delighted to hear about the commitment being made in my hon. Friend's locality
  534
  towards modern methods of construction. I know that there are major regeneration issues there. She mentioned Advantage West Midlands, which I am sure will have heard her observations—and of course, I undertake to look further into the matter myself.
  Mr. Steen Mr. Steen rose—
  Keith Hill: How can I resist the hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. Steen: May I put the real problem to the Minister? The Deputy Prime Minister said that 3.75 million houses would be needed by 2011, but the former Conservative Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), mentioned 4.25 million. We are not building that many houses. PPG3 said that they should be built on brownfield sites, but we are running out of them, so we have to build on greenfield sites, We are not building on greenfield sites, so the price of houses is going up as a result of a shortage. It is all a question of how we are going to build more houses. Until we build more houses, prices will not go down. If prices do not go down, we will not build more affordable houses unless the Government invest much more money. That is the problem.
  Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman presents a far-reaching and comprehensive analysis, much of which I agree with—but let me reassure him about one point: as he is aware, the Government have adopted a policy of "brownfield first", and we have set a target of 60 per cent. new build on brownfield sites in London and the wider south-east. That target has been exceeded considerably, the figure now standing at 75 per cent. We are therefore making very serious progress, but part and parcel of the solution to further build on brownfield sites is our commitment to greater density of build. That gives rise to separate issues in respect of higher and greater build density, and I am delighted to say that recent statistics show that progress is also being made in that direction.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Keith Hill: I am being inundated with requests to give way, but perhaps I can reassure Members on both sides of the House by pointing out that I have a lot more to say, and that there will be ample opportunity for me to give way and to listen to their remarks later. First, I should at least set out the Bill's context.
  I was talking about the need to increase housing supply, a subject on which there is common ground on both sides of the House. I remind Members that it is for that purpose that we asked Kate Barker to review the issues underlying the lack of supply and responsiveness of housing in the UK. We welcomed her interim report and its analysis, and we look forward to her spring report.
  We have achieved a great deal, but we do of course need to do more. That is why, in the next three years, we shall back the communities plan with a massive £22 billion worth of investment in housing and communities. That is why we are increasing the total resources devoted specifically to housing to £11 billion

  535
  by 2005–06—a 30 per cent. increase on last year's spend. And that is also why, over the next three years, we are committing at least £1 billion to key worker housing—more than three times the rate of spend in the current year—tackling low demand and transforming failing housing markets through nine pathfinder projects, backed by a £500 million market renewal fund. We have already announced the £125 million pathfinder scheme for east Manchester and Salford, and we expect to make more announcements shortly.
  Mr. Jack: Does the Minister agree that the private sector—particularly smaller-scale private building companies—also has a contribution to make in helping to meet the objectives that he has clearly explained to the House? Is he aware that the way in which current housing policy is being applied, particularly in respect of the number of houses that can be built in the north-west, is inhibiting the contribution that those private builders can make to achieving his objectives? Can he assure me that he will look into that matter in the context of the Bill, and subsequently?
  Keith Hill: I am listening to the right hon. Gentleman carefully and with interest, and I am happy to assure him that I will consider his assertions and endeavour to respond to him in due course.
  In addition to our commitments in respect of new build of houses, key worker housing and renewing failing housing markets, we have extended the decent homes target to the private sector, and we expect to make steady progress in increasing the proportion of vulnerable households living in decent homes in the private sector. In order to sharpen our housing delivery mechanisms, we are targeting housing investment on regional and local priorities through the regional housing hoards, which we established to integrate housing with regional, economic and planning strategies.
  Matthew Green: The Minister has talked a lot about the need to increase the amount of social and affordable housing, and about some of the various things that the Government are doing. However, as we are discussing the Housing Bill, can he tell me which of its measures will actually increase the amount of such housing?
  Keith Hill: We have proposals to encourage investment through the Housing Corporation in companies that can engage in that area, and we are certainly in the business of restoring to use many properties that have fallen into decay, which is a central purpose of the Bill.
  We continue to look to the future. We welcome the Law Commission's work on tenure reform, and its report, which was published in November. We look forward to proposals for a draft Bill later this year, and we expect to build on that work to move forward on some of the important issues that will not be addressed by the Housing Bill, such as tenant deposit protection, which could fit well with the models of written agreement proposed by the commission.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister has been speaking for 15 minutes and has told us all the things that are not in the Bill. Is it not about time he told us what is in it?
  Mr. Speaker: This is a Second Reading debate. If the Minister had been out of order, I would, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, have brought him to order.
  Keith Hill: I am tempted to say, Mr. Speaker, that they do not like it up 'em. The Government have sought to turn round a record of housing decline and disaster—indeed, we are succeeding in doing so. I absolutely understand why the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) does not want to hear about our excellent record.
  It is essential that we set the Bill's proposals in the context of our wider housing and regeneration policy. New build, regeneration and the modernisation of our social housing stock are vital, but so is the role of the private rented sector. We are committed to the promotion of quality and choice across all types of housing, as we set out clearly in our housing policy statement in December 2000, which was the first comprehensive review of housing since the 1970s. In that statement we expressed our belief that the private rented sector offers an important and flexible form of tenure to a wide group of people and a genuine alternative to owner occupation and social renting. A thriving, vigorous private rented sector can also encourage mobility and choice, and provide a step on to the first rung of the housing ladder, or starter housing. It can make a major contribution to the flexibility and success of the wider economy.
  We are already improving quality in the private rented sector through extra money and new powers for local authorities' private sector renewal work, and through our funding of the £2 million private landlords project to work with private sector landlords to improve the management and condition of housing in selected areas with acute problems of low demand. Indeed, the importance attached by the Government to a vigorous and responsive private rented sector was reflected in last month's pre-Budget report by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who announced our intention to consult on the introduction of United States-style real estate investment trusts—REITs, as they are known—to remove the tax disadvantages currently faced by institutions and to promote investment in the private sector. He also indicated that we would consider a domestic business tax allowance to give more favourable tax treatment to private landlords who make capital improvements to promote energy efficiency.
  Mr. David Clelland: Part 3 of the Bill will be very much welcomed, not least by local authorities such as Gateshead council, which has long campaigned for a system of licensing private landlords. The Bill refers to areas of low housing demand. Is my right hon. Friend aware that that means areas that have become run-down because of neglect, or sometimes because of the deliberate policy of absentee

  537
  landlords who let to antisocial and sometimes criminal elements to reduce property values and build up their empires? In the meantime, decent people are either driven out or made subject to the criminal racist behaviour of such people. Will my right hon. Friend assure us that the Bill will give local authorities all the powers that they need to put an end to that cancer in some of our urban areas?
  Keith Hill: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am aware that there are serious issues concerning antisocial behaviour and poor housing conditions as a result of abandonment in his constituency, and in a number of other local authority areas in the north of England and the midlands. That is why we are determined to take action through the Bill to curb the activities of a rogue element by introducing much needed reforms to both the private rented sector and the owner-occupied sector. The Bill will also introduce provision for social housing where action is needed, covering England and Wales.
  Joan Ruddoek: The two worst cases of antisocial behaviour that I have dealt with have happened when social services departments outside my own local authority entered into contracts with private landlords and then set people who were not qualified in any sense to support the people involved, who have turned out to be antisocial tenants. I hope that my right hon. Friend agrees that social services departments have a responsibility to give support to tenants who have behaviour patterns that they may not be able to control. That is an important element to consider when we examine the licensing of private properties.
  Keith Hill: My hon. Friend is right. If we confer new powers on local authorities to take action in the private rented sector, it is equally incumbent on those local authorities to take appropriate action to limit antisocial behaviour in the properties for which they are responsible. The new powers are widely applauded and will go a long way towards addressing the problem of antisocial behaviour, but experience indicates that early intervention—not least through social services departments—is also important.
  In March last year we published the Housing Bill in draft form. By the way, I should point out to Opposition Front Benchers that I have been talking about the Housing Bill for some time, as they would know if only they had been listening. In July the Select Committee published its report on the draft Bill. That exercise proved yet again the value of pre-legislative scrutiny. We were able to respond positively to more than 40 of the Committee's recommendations, including those on houses in multiple occupation and changes to the right-to-buy provisions.
  The Housing Bill will provide new powers to tackle problems and inequalities in the private housing sector. Many of the most vulnerable in our society live in private sector accommodation, often in conditions that
  538
  we should not tolerate, and will tolerate no longer. We will use regulation imaginatively and where the risks are greatest; we will not regulate for its own sake.
  Ms Christine Russell Ms Christine Russell (City of Chester) (Lab) rose—
  Lynne Jones Lynne Jones (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) rose—
  Keith Hill: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Ms Russell), and then to the Opposition Member whose voice I heard.
  Lynne Jones: No, it was me.
  Keith Hill: The voice came from below the Gangway, but it is not axiomatically an opposition voice. I shall give way to both my hon. Friends.
  Ms Russell: We all welcome the long overdue licensing of houses in multiple occupation. I was a member of the Select Committee, which had some concerns about the exemption of student accommodation. We accept that halls of residence are properly monitored and inspected by the educational establishment, but we are concerned about student accommodation in the community. I would welcome my right hon. Friend's views on that issue, because young people leaving home for the first time are vulnerable to problems such as dodgy wiring and unsafe gas appliances. Student homes should be included in the licensing provisions.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions are getting rather long. I have put a 10-minute limit on speeches to accommodate the many Members who wish to speak, and long interventions are unfair to those who are waiting to be called.
  Keith Hill: By that token, Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate for me to get on with my speech now, instead of being as generous as I have been heretofore in allowing interventions. I assure my hon. Friend that the proposals for the licensing of HMOs will catch a proportion of student accommodation. However, the purpose of the legislation is to improve the management of properties, not to determine the areas in which students live. I know that concern about student accommodation is widespread, especially among Labour Members, but the Bill includes provision for the extension of an HMO licensing system to areas with clear generic evidence of defective and unsatisfactory accommodation. That may embrace the possibility of extending the licensing system to cover student accommodation, but that is not the central purpose of the Bill, which is to improve the quality of management of the properties most at risk in the HMO sector.
  Lynne Jones: As my right hon. Friend is aware, in opposition the Labour party campaigned vigorously for the licensing of HMOs. I have in my hand a document produced by the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire when he was shadow housing spokesman, which advocates the licensing of HMOs with four or fewer occupants. Mandatory licensing will apply only to larger HMOs, which will not cover the Bournbrook area of my constituency where

  539
  there is a large student population, usually four to a house in two-storey houses. The prevalence of such accommodation causes environmental degradation and antisocial behaviour problems. What hope can my right hon. Friend give the permanent residents of such areas that the local authority will have the necessary power to deal with those very real problems?
  Keith Hill: I fully understand the concerns of my hon. Friend and other Members about that issue. She should remember, however, that the purpose of the legislation is to deal with the management of properties. Where there is clear evidence of defective management, in terms of the poor condition of properties and the antisocial behaviour of the occupants, there is a basis for intervention. We are trying to focus the legislation on the properties most at risk according to all the available evidence; for example, where there is the highest number of fatalities from fire. We are not in the business of regulating the whole sector—that is not our purpose.
  In respect of areas of high student density, our feeling is that the appropriate response from the local authority should be threefold: first, to look carefully at accreditation; secondly, to give greater consideration to the opportunities available through local planning and guidance; and thirdly, to work more carefully with the university authorities. My Department is engaging in depth with the Department for Education and Skills so that we can co-ordinate our approach to problems such as excessive concentrations of students and their wider social implications.
  Mr. Mike Hancock: Will the Minister give way?
  Keith Hill: I fear that I must not give way; as colleagues have pointed out, I have already spoken at some length.
  I come to the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland). Decent homes and respectable neighbourhoods are vital to sustainable communities. Unfortunately, in some parts of the country the problems of house price collapse and of abandonment are exacerbated by the irresponsibility of rogue landlords who buy cheap and rent out properties that are often in poor condition, often to antisocial tenants whose activities further debase the local environment.
  The Bill will give local authorities new powers selectively to license private landlords in such areas of low housing demand, or in other areas where there is a particular problem, perhaps of antisocial behaviour, for which licensing could be part of the solution. Local authorities will be able to set new and higher standards of management in such properties. If landlords do not comply, the local authority will have the power to take over the management of the property. We believe those measures will be a helpful addition to the armoury of weapons with which local authorities can already tackle antisocial behaviour. We are open-minded about other circumstances in which licensing, sensitively deployed, could make a vital difference to local communities.
  540
  Houses in multiple occupation often exhibit some of the worst housing conditions. They may be badly managed and in poor physical condition—
  Mr. Andrew Love: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Keith Hill: Let me make my point before giving way to my hon. Friend; it really will have to be almost the last intervention.
  We intend to fulfil our manifesto commitment to introduce new mandatory licensing for the highest risk houses in multiple occupation. I was delighted that Shelter welcomed the proposal as a great step forward. We expect the new mandatory system to cover properties of three or more storeys and which house five or more people who constitute more than one household. Conditions on landlords under licensing will ensure that minimum standards of management are met and maintained, for example, by ensuring that there are safe gas and electrical appliances and that smoke alarms are in proper working order.
  I can no longer resist my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love), who is a doughty campaigner on housing issues. I give way to him.
  Mr. Love: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there are about 1.5 million houses in multiple occupation, yet according to the Financial Times only about 120,000 will be included in the high risk category, which is less than 10 per cent. As we are trying to deal with both poor physical condition and bad management, will my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that he will ensure that all HMOs exhibiting those problems are covered by the legislation?
  Keith Hill: I accept that the management of some smaller HMOs can also be of concern, and licensing could offer a solution in the areas where such concerns are widespread. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend. In such circumstances, local authorities will be able to extend licensing to other types of HMOs, following local consultation and with the approval of the appropriate Minister for their schemes. However, in all cases, licensees will need to show that they are fit and proper persons to manage the property and that arrangements are in place to ensure that adequate management standards are met.
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Keith Hill: I have taken 10 interventions, which is very generous. I am conscious that I have still to describe much of the Bill and that hon. Members have a great desire to participate in the debate, so I feel that I need to pursue my speech without intervention, as far as I possibly can.
  I want to make it wholly clear to the House that we do not intend to license the entire private rented sector. The licensing provisions in the Bill target the highest risk and most problematic private rented accommodation. I say again that the vast majority of private landlords are decent and responsible people. They, along with decent tenants and the local community, will benefit from these provisions.

  541
  There are close links between housing and health, and poor housing has safety as well as health implications, particularly for older and vulnerable people. Tackling health and safety issues in housing requires an approach that looks at the impact of the property on the individual, as well as the state of the house itself. The Bill paves the way for that approach by replacing the existing housing fitness standard with new enforcement arrangements based on the housing health and safety rating system. That will help local authorities to prioritise their activities and target properties where the health and safety hazards and the risks to residents are greatest. I am glad to say that the British Medical Association has enthusiastically endorsed those provisions. It said:
  "The housing health and safety rating system provides the best available assessment of the health risks of a dwelling and its use should be underpinned by primary legislation, introduced without delay."
  We are happy to oblige.
  The Bill will also continue the modernisation of the right-to-buy scheme, tackling exploitation and reducing profiteering. The Government remain fully committed to the principle of the right to buy. It has helped many thousands of ordinary families to realise their aspirations to own their own homes and it has helped to create stable mixed-tenure communities, but there are loopholes, and the Bill seeks to close them.
  We proposed four changes in the draft Bill, including extending the period of qualification for the right to buy and the period during which discount must be repaid if a home is sold on. We have added further provisions following recommendations from the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the home ownership taskforce, including giving social landlords a right of first refusal when an owner wishes to resell a property within 10 years of buying. Properties scheduled for demolition will be exempted from the right to buy, which is particularly relevant where regeneration schemes are proposed. Also, tenants who do deferred resale deals with companies will have to repay discount. Both measures will tackle the profiteering that has escalated the loss of social housing in areas of highest housing need. Making the RTB work better for existing tenants and prospective owners is essential to a comprehensive approach to local housing.
  As I have indicated, we are devoting significant funding to the construction of new affordable housing, but it is clearly our duty to ensure that we get value for money from that investment. The Bill therefore provides for the Housing Corporation to pay grant to organisations other than registered social landlords. Similar changes will apply in Wales. That will encourage competition and increase the supply of affordable homes. Commercial developers who receive such grants will be required to reach the same high standards as registered social landlords.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Keith Hill: I am sorry, but I have to continue with my speech as I am conscious of the pressure on the House's time.
  More people than ever own their own homes. More than two thirds of homes are owner-occupied and at some point most people will buy or sell a property. But
  542
  the process of buying and selling a house is, frankly, shambolic. Almost one third of would-be house purchases fall through. Surveys tell us that nine out of 10 people are unhappy with the process and want some change. For many people, the house buying process can be time consuming, expensive, unpredictable and extremely stressful. Our proposals need to be considered against that background.
  We therefore intend to make provision for the introduction of home information packs. That is a further manifesto commitment. We have thoroughly researched such a system and a number of voluntary home information pack schemes are already operating successfully. We are clear that making key information available right at the start of the process makes home buying and selling easier, more transparent and more successful.
  I am delighted that our home information pack reforms have the full support of the Consumers Association, which welcomes the inclusion of the packs in the Bill. The late Dame Sheila McKechnie was a strong advocate of the home information pack, and I am sure that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to her memory. We have also had support from a significant number of industry stakeholders, including the Halifax building society and the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors.
  Mr. Edward Davey: Will the Minister now list all those professional organisations that are opposed to the home information packs?
  Keith Hill: If I may say so to the hon. Gentleman, on this occasion the Liberal Democrats have got it spectacularly wrong. Traditionally and historically the self-proclaimed defenders of the consumer, they are in this regard, like the official Opposition, simply playing to the game of the vested interests. They have got it wrong, and we will demonstrate in the course of proceedings on the Bill how wrong they have got it.
  The fact is that these interests, these stakeholders, recognise with us that changes are needed in the way in which homes are bought and sold. Home information packs will make a difference, but we will address other aspects of the process as well. We are on the side of the consumer and we are confident of consumer support. If the Opposition remain in any doubt about consumer support for the proposals, I refer them to the excellent briefing prepared by the Consumers Association for today's debate, entitled "Home Truths". It is time that the Opposition learned those on this issue.
  The main components of the pack are likely to be local searches, a home condition report including an energy efficiency certificate, and other legal documents such as evidence of title. We are continuing to work closely with industry and consumer stakeholders on the detailed components.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: I accept that some people are very enthusiastic about the home information pack and that very reputable professional organisations and other experts are opposed to it. The Minister has prayed in aid the fact that various organisations support him. If the system is

  543
  working well—I believe that it is in parts—and if he is minded to introduce this scheme, he should surely do so on a voluntary basis, at least for the first few years. He might he agreeably surprised to find that that removes much of the criticism. Further, can he confirm that the Bill will remove the criminal sanctions that he envisaged in the draft Bill, and instead include civil proceedings? That is a much better way of dealing with the problem.
  Keith Hill: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman—who has, I know, great expertise in such matters—an assurance about the removal of criminal sanctions and the introduction of civil penalties in the present proposals. However, for reasons that I propose to set out very shortly, I cannot accept the arguments for continuing the scheme on a voluntary basis.
  Claims about the costs of the pack have been wildly exaggerated. Most of the documents have to be provided in any event. Only the home condition report is new, and even commissioning a survey is hardly novel. In most cases, the costs will be transferred from the buyer to the seller, who, in turn, will usually also be a buyer. What is very important is that first-time buyers will benefit the most as they will not have to pay those costs up front to get on the first rung of the property ladder.
  We recognise, however, the Select Committee's concerns about the industry's readiness. As we have said before, home information packs will be introduced only when we are fully satisfied that all conditions are in place to make the scheme a success, including sufficient numbers of trained home inspectors and satisfactory insurance arrangements. We are consulting consumer and industry partners on the possibility of a phased introduction of home information packs as part of a national roll-out.
  I do not agree that further piloting before the introduction of the packs would be useful. We have already had a voluntary local pilot to test the scheme's mechanics. Packs are being trialled successfully through several voluntary schemes in Britain and we know that the packs work successfully elsewhere in the world. I do not believe that further pilot testing would tell us much more than what we already know. We know what is required, so the task is to deliver that at a sensible pace after the proper scrutiny that good project management secures.
  Mr. Chris Mole: Does my right hon. Friend have any views on the preparedness of local authorities for the operation of electronic land and property records to support the introduction of the new approach?
  Keith Hill: My hon. Friend is right. We must ensure that work on e-conveyancing and online information from local authorities is in place at the earliest possible opportunity so that we achieve part of the purpose of the process—to have as rapid a house transaction process as possible. I thank him for his intervention because he is absolutely right.
  The Bill will also introduce a new office of social housing ombudsman for Wales for the purpose of investigating complaints against social landlords in
  544
  Wales. I referred earlier to measures to combat antisocial behaviour, when discussing the provisions on selective licensing, and the Bill contains three other measures that consolidate those in the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003. First, as foreshadowed in the draft Housing Bill, local authorities will be given the flexibility to extend an introductory tenancy beyond its usual 12-month period. Secondly, landlords of secure tenants will be able to refuse a mutual exchange application if successful court action has been taken against tenants or members of their households for antisocial behaviour or if such proceedings are in progress. Thirdly, the Bill provides that if a tenant is pursuing a right-to-buy purchase while a landlord is seeking a possession or demotion order against that same tenant on the ground of antisocial behaviour, the purchase cannot be completed until the possession or demotion proceedings have been heard. That will put an end to the abuse by which antisocial tenants exploit the right to buy to avoid the consequences of their actions.
  Finally, the Bill contains two further measures to end inequalities. It will give unmarried different sex partners and same sex partners who do not enter into a civil partnership the same rights in relation to tenancy succession. It will also extend eligibility for disabled facilities grants to all those who occupy caravans as their only or main residence.
  The Government have done much to create sustainable communities. We are addressing both supply and demand issues in the housing market in a way that has not been seen for many years. However, more needs to be done—and can be done—to create a fairer, more efficient housing market, and to protect the most vulnerable in housing. The Bill is central to the Government's agenda and will put in place the legislative framework necessary to deliver decent homes and decent places. I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.18 pm
  Mr. David Curry: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to a bill which introduces burdensome, ineffective and bureaucratic information packs; fails to provide a sufficiently clear licensing regime; weakens tenants' right to buy; is unclear on the rules and standards that regulate private sector access to Housing Corporation funds; and, overall, acts as a disincentive to offering property for letting in the UK's weak private rented sector."
  I draw attention to the fact that I write occasional articles for The Builder.
  I hope that the House will not think that I am eccentric if I devote my speech to the Bill. It is complex and will merit serious discussion in Committee because its outline raises an enormous number of questions. Parts of the Bill are welcome, subject to their effective implementation and full discussion of their implications, such as the new housing health and safety rating system, which extends to housing the hazard analysis at critical control point principles of risk assessment that apply in other parts of the economy, such as food processing. Further welcome aspects of the Bill are the introduction of the housing ombudsman for Wales and the fact that it includes an acceptance of the need to do more to tackle antisocial behaviour by, for example, strengthening the introductory tenancies that were introduced by the Government in which I served.

  545
  Other elements of the Bill need urgent clarification and, I suspect, simplification if they are to be capable of effective administration and enforcement, especially the licensing provisions. Other parts of it are simply unnecessary, obstructive, ill-conceived and burdensome, like the seller's pack and the intervention in the housing market.
  Parts of the Bill are virtually incapable of assessment because it is an enabling measure and no details are given of how the provisions will work in practice, especially private sector access to the social housing grant. Finally, some clauses are presented as intending to tackle abuse, but, when taken in combination with earlier steps, seem set to challenge the operation of well-established policies—for example, the right to buy.
  The most important part of the Bill is, by common acceptance, licensing. No one will object to measures clearly aimed at reducing loss of life and injury in premises that may often house vulnerable and insecure poor people and families, perhaps with low levels of competence. The measures must, however, be subject to sensible tests of their practicality and effectiveness. Are they as light as possible to deliver the job that they are supposed to do? Are they easily understood, clear and well defined? Are they properly enforceable on a consistent basis? Will they raise expertise, confidence and standards among landlords, especially in the private sector, to encourage them to place property on the market? We all talk constantly about the need for the private sector to play a fuller part in housing provision in the United Kingdom even though it is such a poor provider on any comparison with other western countries in terms of what it can do.
  The problem is that the licensing element tries to tackle too many objectives in too many ways. We risk ending up with a cluttered, confusing and congested landscape of regulation that may not even protect the most vulnerable. The Bill proposes mandatory licensing of houses in multiple occupation containing five people and of three storeys. It proposes discretionary licensing of a wider range of houses in multiple occupation. It also proposes selective licensing of all private landlords in designated areas of low demand, in areas that are likely to decline into areas of low demand or in areas that suffer from antisocial behaviour. Those powers may also be used outside areas of low demand to tackle bad landlords and antisocial behaviour. As the Minister said, enforcement is effected by interim management orders or final management orders, with the costs of licensing to be met almost entirely by the licensing fee.
  The panoply of powers inevitably raises a host of questions. Who decides who is a good or bad landlord? On what basis is that decided? Against what test is the decision made? Is it objective, intuitive or, as the Minister said, generic, whatever that might mean? When can selective powers be used, and for what? In what circumstances would the Deputy Prime Minister expect to authorise licensing of all private landlords, and how extensive will the use of the new discretionary schemes be? What is the degree of antisocial behaviour that will trigger licensing? How is that to be demonstrated? Is it true that the Bill will apply licensing to some owner-occupied self-contained flats for which the duty to license and enforce would fall on freeholders or managers, who have no right to enter the premises to which the regulations apply?
  546
  The danger is that the Government are creating a complex, fuzzy-edged, overlapping and differently enforced heterogeneous patchwork of schemes, which will be a deterrent, not an incentive, to landlords and lead to situations in which, for example, five properties that are owned by one person are each under a different regulatory regime. I have no principled or ideological objection to licensing if it delivers a specific, defined, achievable and measurable benefit. I fear that the Bill is about to create a regulatory web in which all the players—tenants, landlords, regeneration agencies and local authorities—will become hopelessly enmeshed. We look to the Minister to unravel its operations in Committee before it unravels in the country at large.
  The Minister reaffirmed the Government's commitment to the right to buy. We never quite believed their commitment because they forced it out through clenched teeth and took an awful long time to make it. It is worth recalling, as is stated in the Housing Corporation's report on affordable homes, that 1.5 million people and families have managed to own their own home through the process and 50,000 people a year are still doing so. The merits of the scheme, as spelled out by the Housing Corporation, are that it is accessible, simple and easily understood and that it operates easily.
  The Barker report, which is a systematic indictment of the Government's failure to deliver even minimum levels of affordable and social housing, should perhaps be delivered in juxtaposition to the Minister's 20-minute prologue to his remarks about the Bill. I notice in this Government a wonderful tendency to elide the notions of affordable housing and social housing. They are not the same. Affordable housing is generally designed for people who want to purchase, perhaps through shared ownership, and social housing is for people who want to rent from a registered social landlord. I hope that the Government will maintain that distinction, rather than pretending that they are the same thing.
  Matthew Green: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the issue of social housing and registered social landlords, will he confirm whether it is still Conservative party policy to extend the right to buy to all RSL tenants?
  Mr. Curry: I notice in the Housing Corporation's report a recommendation that the right to buy ought to be extended across the social sectors because it is clearly unfair that somebody in a local authority house should have the right to buy and that, for a local authority house that has been transferred, the right to buy is carried with that transfer, whereas for a housing association property it is not, generally speaking, although there are some exceptions. We shall develop a policy that seeks to fulfil that objective of creating a level playing field, and the Housing Corporation has come up with some extremely sensible ideas for the way forward. Had it given more mechanisms on how to move

  547
  forward, it would have been even more helpful. There are some fine aspirations in that report, but the mechanics need to be put in place.
  Dr. Brian Iddon: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that his policy would allow RSL properties in rural villages to be sold?
  Mr. Curry: We have never sold RSL properties in villages. There has always been a prohibition on such sales in villages of fewer than 3,000 inhabitants. That was built into the very first right-to-buy proposals, and it would remain the case. I am a rural Member of Parliament, and I know precisely the problems of providing housing for local people. I support those measures that allow local authorities and social providers to limit access to people from the local community and to maintain that access.
  Mr. Steen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in rural areas such as south Devon, there is a shortage of greenfield land, the only area where there is any spare land to build houses, with the result that councils are not building on such sites? There is therefore great scarcity and prices are going up. The Government are failing because they cannot build affordable or social housing—scarcity leads to the prices rising too high.
  Mr. Curry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is the problem everywhere. The Barker report says that 39,000 additional houses ought to be built every year, merely to keep up with population growth and household formation, and that is almost certainly an underestimate. The work was done by Shelter in co-operation with the Barker inquiry.
  Andrew Bennett: Do I take it from the right hon. Gentleman's advocacy of all this extra housing that he is prepared to reverse the policy of the Conservative party, which was critical of Labour, claiming that we were going to concrete over the green belt? Is he now committing himself to putting all those new houses into the green belt?
  Mr. Curry: Nobody is talking about the green belt. We all recognise that there is a major demand for property. We know that it comes from a number of sources, one of which is household formation—that is sociology. Immigration in south-east England causes a significant demand for housing because people are spilling out of London into the region. We also know that in the major metropolitan areas, with the possible exception of Leeds—it depends whether the census people have got their facts right—people are spilling out of the centre into the suburbs. I do not dispute the fact that there is a significant demand. The question is how and where we meet that demand. The idea that demand in London and the south-east is created by people from Yorkshire and Lancashire marching down the M1 or the A1 with soot or snow on their boots is entirely illusory; indeed, sane people are moving in the opposite direction.
  548
  The Government claim that the measures in the Bill will have no impact on the volume of sales. The explanatory notes, which are normally almost as incomprehensible as the Bill itself, state on page 61, at paragraph 361:
  "There will be a limited effect on public expenditure. The number of sales under the scheme is unlikely to be affected."
  I have to say that I treat that with a degree of scepticism. The changes to the discount already implemented may well have stopped the right to buy in its tracks in London—it remains to be seen whether that is so—and the Bill's other measures, including the extension of the qualifying period, a consequence of which is that discounts are repayable in the event of resale within that period, add to a significantly steeper barrier to right to buy.
  I accept that some of the measures make sense. I agree that if a property is to be demolished within a reasonable period, people should not be allowed to buy merely in order to be able to claim compensation. I have no problem with giving rights of first refusal to social landlords on a market basis—provided that the process of putting property on the market is not delayed. Nor do I have a problem with the penalisation of deferred resale agreements, although it is worth stating that the Heriot-Watt university study showed a very limited use of companies and that many people used them because they had no access to finance from conventional sources, so one has to be careful how one uses that argument. However, I have still to be persuaded that the Bill does not form another chapter of the insidious Labour attack on the right to buy, which the party has never really approved or embraced. I hope that the measures are genuinely targeted on abuse and that it will be demonstrated that the volume of sales has not been significantly affected.
  Ms Oona King: May I reiterate the incredible problems that the right to buy has caused in areas such as Tower Hamlets? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that extending the policy to housing associations, for example, would involve additional public subsidy of about £1 billion? Where would that money be found?
  Mr. Curry: I really do not think that the hon. Lady has got it right in this instance. The people who produced the Housing Corporation report were not a bunch of card-carrying Conservatives, and one of the clear points they made in the report was that we had to consider some means by which we could create equal conditions across the social field. That is especially important given that the burden of development of social housing has passed from local authorities, and may pass from housing associations as well under the Government's proposals to bring in private developers, albeit into schemes that, I suspect, will be managed by housing associations. It therefore makes sense to search for a reasonable way in which housing opportunities can be made more generally available.
  Jeremy Corbyn: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the vast ongoing scandal whereby council properties are bought under right to buy with money loaned to the tenants, then rented out at exorbitant rates to people, many of whom are entitled to housing benefit

  549
  and whose rents are paid by the public? Does he not think that someone who exercises their right to buy should be limited to renting out the property for no more than the council or housing association would have rented it out for?
  Mr. Curry: I have already said that in so far as the measures are designed to stop such practices, I support them. I am not in the business of promoting manipulation or abuse of the system—I want people's natural and normal aspirations to be fulfilled. I said that we would support the Government in so far as they are trying to deal with abuses.
  David Wright: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned how he would like to standardise the right-to-buy regime across the social housing sectors. Does he think that we should standardise the discount regime as well?
  Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman is using "standardise" falsely. I want people to have opportunities across the right-to-buy spectrum. Those may well be equivalent opportunities—
  David Wright: So, continuing variable discounts.
  Mr. Curry: That is one of the recommendations in the Housing Corporation report, "A home of my own", but although the corporation was strong on possible sensible directions in which to move, it has not yet provided any of the landing lights showing how to arrive at our destination, so we must all try to work out the details.
  The Minister may recall that when we were in government we toyed with the idea of introducing a social housing grant for private sector developers, but did not proceed. The Government believe that housing associations have grown lazy on the fat of the land and are failing on output, productivity and value for money. One only has to talk to people in the sector to realise that that message is coming over loud and clear, particularly from the Treasury. The idea is that the private sector will be brought in, particularly because of the need to meet targets in the communities plan. The measure must be seen against the background of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill and the introduction of a tariff system to commute section 106 agreements into cash payments. After all, the majority of social housing is the result of planning gain. Registered social landlords and housing associations fear that private developers will build on easy sites, many of which will be in the green belt, such as areas around Milton Keynes, undermining their ability to recycle surpluses from, for example, shared ownership into social housing construction. Housing associations and the private sector are developing partnerships in which developers have responsibility for the land and housing associations grant and management functions. They are working together effectively, especially in areas where land values are high, within the framework of section 106.
  As with much of the Housing Bill, a great deal depends on the detail of how it works. Can section 106 agreements be replaced across the board with cash or tariff payments, or is it the intention that section 106 will
  550
  remain a requirement for social housing provision? There is a lack of clarity about what is intended in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, but it is crucial that we know whether section 106 agreements can be replaced in principle with a cash payment at the demand of a developer or whether local authorities can insist that a quota of social housing be met when private developers are given planning permission?
  Keith Hill: That is not the subject of the Housing Bill, but I am happy to respond. We have made it clear throughout discussions on the Government's new proposals on section 106, that that will be for the local authority to determine. The local authority will determine the way in which the requirements of section 106 will be met, and whether that will be done wholly in kind, partly in kind, wholly by cash or partly by cash. However, that decision is for the local authority to make and for the developer to respond to.
  Mr. Curry: We will pursue that in the course of our proceedings because, although the proposals are in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, they are relevant to the Housing Bill—the two are meshed together. However, my understanding was that developers would have the right to commute section 106 agreements across the piece. That obviously has significant implications, but this is not the time to deal with them.
  What proportion of social housing grant are the Government willing to commit to private sector developers as opposed to registered social landlords? Is there a cut-off point? The Minister said that the standards and rules would be identical. With Sir John Egan's recommendations on productivity, training and techniques in mind, the issue of the level playing field becomes significant. What happens if a private developer goes bust? Who safeguards the tenant's interest, and who safeguards the public interest, given that public funds have been committed to the scheme? There have been rumours of objections from Brussels to the state aid provisions. I should therefore be grateful if, in Committee, the Minister clarified whether there are any such concerns from Brussels about the operation of those provisions.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman has raised some issues that the Minister skipped over rather too quickly for many of us who are sceptical about the Bill's provisions. However, if public money is going to be used to provide social housing, the powers of the independent housing ombudsman in Wales and England are pertinent. Surely, tenants of such housing have the same rights as tenants of housing provided directly by registered social landlords. Does he agree?
  Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman has added an extremely relevant question to my list of questions for the Minister. I am happy to endorse it, and shall point it out to my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), who will be dealing with the Bill in Committee.
  I have left until last the issue of the seller's packs—or more precisely, the son of seller's packs—because I like to keep some of the nicest parts until the end. It is a bad answer in search of a problem. The comparison with

  551
  other markets has little legitimacy. The British mortgage market, which the Minister for Housing and Planning described as shambolic—a curious choice of words—is, with 1.5 million transactions a year, one of the most dynamic, innovative and high-volume in the world. Professor David Miles gave a strong endorsement to the operations of the British housing market, somewhat to the disappointment, I suspect, of the Treasury, which thought that there was a wonderful fixed rate interest solution to the problems of volatility.
  The problems are easily stated. The seller's pack will add to the costs of transactions, which is particularly true in low-value areas. If we move, according to what the Government have been spinning, to a new band of council tax in areas of housing stress where houses can be sold for a few thousand pounds, it will be a measurable addition to the overall costs. It will require a new army of inspectors—the estimate is some 7,000 to 8,000 of them to produce home information packs. Who will recruit them, who will train them, and what will be their professional experience? Even more pertinently, what will be their indemnity or insurance position in the event of there being a problem with the information contained in the packs, given that no claims history exists on which to base it.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: Does my right hon. Friend agree that an alternative proposal to assist both the vendor and the purchaser would be to have a fresh look at the work done by the Land Registry, which appears systematically, particularly in Devon, to provide inaccurate information in solicitors' searches, leading to many court cases and unnecessary legal costs for both vendor and purchaser?
  Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is right. If the basic information is incorrect, it does not matter in what form it is assembled, or in what sort of pack—the information remains incorrect and needs to be sorted out. The Minister mentioned the idea of a phased roll-out—wonderful word that the Government use. Would it not be more sensible to roll out bits of the pack at a time, rather than to roll it out on a geographic or price basis? The danger is that there will be an unnecessary multiplication of systems and costs. We are likely to end up with a pack of some 55 to 60 pages, which will have been written for lawyers, and which will be valid for no more than six months—the length of time for which the lending industry will regard it as valid—to deal with the problem of failed transactions, which are much more likely to stem from relationship breakdown, relocation, the chain of selling, the difficulty with funding or change of mind than from technical problems with transparency in the process or deficiency in the information—[Interruption.] I give way to the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) with whom I used to share the chair of the all-party group on homelessness and housing need.
  Mr. Love: I welcome the fact that this part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech comes at the end rather than the beginning. The Consumers Association has said that housing information packs will
  552
  "make it easier for consumers to make informed decisions about property instead of having to rely on the property details as put together by estate agents which are often misleading and inaccurate."
  Does he agree?
  Mr. Curry: No, I do not agree entirely. I do not think that the Consumers Association's pronouncements should be regarded as having biblical truth attached to them. Despite having the word "consumers" in its name, it has got many things wrong in its time, and if the hon. Gentleman would like to join me in a beer at some stage, I will be able to go into that in some detail.
  Do the Government intend to exempt any properties—there was some talk about whether properties up to a certain value might be exempted? The danger might be that if some low-value properties cannot even get a home information pack, they really would be stigmatised for being at the bottom end of the market. The Government are already saying that landlords should warn right-to-buy purchasers of the burdens of home ownership and of what they are taking on. In that context, it seems curious that there is no requirement on the public sector to deliver home information packs or seller's packs, for example, on right-to-buy property. That seems a curious perversity in the Government's proposals. As has been said, there are much better ways to increase efficiency—e-conveyancing, improved efficiency and better searches by the national land information centre, and agreement of common data exchange formats.
  My final point is that this measure is likely to lead remorselessly to demands for the licensing of estate agents. The only people in the housing world who are not licensed are estate agents, and they will be key players in the process, whether or not they have any expertise. I wait to see the inevitable bandwagon demanding licensing of estate agents rolling towards us—[Interruption.]
  I knew that on using the wonderful word "licensing" I would receive a Pavlovian response.
  Finally, let me mention a couple of absent friends. One is any reference to empty properties, a subject to which the Government have alluded on a number of occasions; another is the issue of park homes. The Government have recognised the need for legislation on park homes. Park owners and tenants have reached a consensus on a number of important matters, yet the Government have apparently said that such measures cannot be incorporated in this Bill, although it already includes measures to extend the definition of park homes so that gypsies and travellers can benefit from improvement grants that are currently not available to them. That seems perverse, given that there is all-party consensus on the issue and no argument between the two sides involved. After all, we do not have many opportunities to legislate in this way.
  Mr. Dawson: I agree with all that the right hon. Gentleman has said about park homes. The Government have already produced a hand-out Bill dealing with crucial issues such as the harassment of residents of the park home sector. Surely those provisions could be incorporated in the Housing Bill.
  Mr. Curry: They were agreed by all parties, and I am sure that they could easily be incorporated. If the

  553
  Government are not prepared to incorporate them, we shall seek to do so ourselves, because it would make a great deal of sense.
  This could he made into a sensible, practical, forward-looking Bill that could garner a wide range of support. The Government could drop the whole idea of seller's packs. They could tailor the right-to-buy measures to ensure that they are really targeted at abuse. They could simplify the licensing measures to create a unified system that is easy to understand, administer and enforce. They could supply the essential details that allow us to make judgments on other parts of the Bill that are still very imprecise, such as the part dealing with the social housing grant. In its current form, however, the Bill is unwieldy, too often confused, constantly lacking clarity or clear definition of purpose and frequently deficient in basic, essential details.
  In Committee, we will do our best to turn this Bill into the sort of Bill that it ought to be and—given imagination and hard work—could still become.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I remind Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 10-minute limit on all Back-Bench speeches.
  4.47 pm
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman:As I listened to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), it occurred to me that my maiden speech, made nearly 34 years ago, was about housing. Housing is still the principal issue in my constituency, at any rate, although the nature of the issue has changed over all those years. That is why I especially welcome the provisions relating to licensing of private landlords' properties, both houses in multiple occupation and individual properties.
  One reason for the present problem involving empty owner-occupied houses in particular—a problem that we did not have when I was first a Member of Parliament—is the fact that the behaviour of private landlords is making those areas uninhabitable, while also driving down the value of owner-occupied houses. Worthy owners who take pride in their homes may find those homes less and less pleasant to live in, and certainly find that the value is falling more and more. For the first time since the worst days of the Conservative Government's housing policies, there are serious problems of negative equity in parts of my constituency. People who wish to sell their houses and to move are unable to do so because the sums offered to them, if any would be offered at all, are often derisory.
  We have a much smaller private rented sector than during the Rachmanite period 40 years ago, but in a way private landlords behave worse than Rachman and his associates and that is leading to demoralisation and disappointment among, as I say, good worthy people with pride in the homes that they own. Private landlords are using houses not simply for antisocial purposes but often for criminal purposes. Again and again, I have complaints from my constituents, particularly in Gorton, south but also in Gorton, north and other parts of my constituency, about private landlord houses that are used for the sale and use of drugs and used as
  554
  brothels. Often, the tenants of those homes are in collusion with the landlord. Often, they are, it is appalling to say, sharing their housing benefit in a crooked operation with the landlords. Therefore, I welcome very much indeed the licensing provisions in the Bill with regard both to houses in multiple occupation, of which I have a considerable number, and individual dwellings.
  I hope that my colleagues in the Government will urge Manchester city council, as soon as that part of the Bill becomes operative, to introduce licensing for very large tracts of my constituency, so that we can start to deal with that problem and restore the pride of owner-occupiers and other residents of those areas in the neighbourhoods in which they live.
  We now have precedents for the way in which those improvements can take place. Fifteen years ago, the Northmoor part of my constituency was an area of despair, depression and dismay for the people living in it. It was going completely downhill. Local people got together in the local Methodist church to try to work out a plan. It was only when the Government came to office and started the neighbourhood renewal schemes that we, together with the housing association and the city council, were able to reverse the trends in the Northmoor area. Regeneration is now so obvious that people wish to become owner-occupiers in properties there that they would never have considered buying 15 years ago.
  Therefore, it can be done. That is why I appeal to my right hon. Friend the Minister, having introduced this extremely worthy measure, to go on with neighbourhood renewal. We have an on-the-street scheme in Gorton. As a result, neighbourhood wardens, using their spare time without being paid, have been able to draw more than 600 young people, sometimes with criminal or antisocial behaviour records, into the community. We need the renewal of the neighbourhood warden scheme in order that the wardens can continue that remarkable work. I will send the Minister the DVD that has been produced by the children and wardens in that area to show what can be done.
  As I say, regeneration under the Government is not just a slogan. It is being achieved because of neighbourhood renewal schemes, the neighbourhood warden schemes and Sure Start, which has a remarkable record in my constituency, but we want more and I hope that the Minister will be able to provide it. I also ask my right hon. Friend to expand on the Government's policies for dealing with empty owner-occupied properties.
  Another issue is the creation of a housing ombudsman for Wales. On paper, I understand why it is not literally necessary for England to have such an ombudsman, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will reconsider. I should like to see far more work done in relation to making housing associations accountable. God help me; when I was Housing Minister in a previous Labour Government, I piloted the legislation that gave housing associations greater responsibilities, duties and rights, and more money. I should like housing associations to be as responsive as local authorities, which may not always be wonderful but have to be accountable to councillors in a way that housing associations are not.

  555
  In one area of my constituency—Field street, Godwin street, Corrigan street, Gathurst street and Franklin road; I do not apologise for naming those streets—housing association properties are derelict and boarded up, which leads to criminal incursions into those areas. The proud people who live there want something done about it. It is a complex problem, but North British Housing, working with our city council, could improve the situation.
  Housing will always be a huge issue. There was a time when we in the city of Manchester had the best record of any local authority in the country in terms of building new dwellings. That was destroyed completely by the policies of the Conservative Party in government. Nevertheless, using the funding that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made available at the beginning of the last Parliament, we are able to do a lot more neighbourhood renewal. However, we need still more.
  I am proud of this Labour Government's record on housing. The Government have transformed a situation that got worse and worse during the 18 years of Conservative government. Now we have a Labour Government who care about housing and have practical policies to make housing better. I hope that the Government will build on what they are doing, that they will not weary of doing well, that they will address themselves in particular to the question of empty, formerly owner-occupied properties, that they will help with negative equity and that they will improve the situation even more for the benefit of my constituents.
  4.57 pm
  Mr. Edward Davey: The House should be grateful to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), for telling the House what was in the Bill—the Minister did not spend much time doing so—and to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who gave real constituency examples of how the Bill could help. I say to the latter that I very much agree with his point about empty homes, as I shall go on to explain.
  It is frustrating to be faced with a Bill that has some excellent elements coupled with some monstrosities. It is almost as frustrating to face a Bill that offers worthy and much needed benefits, yet omits so much that is needed possibly even more urgently. Unfortunately, that is the case today.
  Some of the proposed regulation of the private rented sector should have happened many years ago. In particular, much of the regulation of the houses in multiple occupation sector is to be welcomed, although there are some criticisms of the detail. Updating the fitness standards should have happened decades ago; those standards go back to the 1920s and '30s and this House should have looked at them before. The proposal for selective licensing is a useful weapon in the fight against antisocial behaviour, and is one of the better things that the Government have done about that problem. The proposals to tackle right-to-buy abuses are also welcome.
  556
  However, we have real problems with the home information packs, which are unnecessary and represent regulation and intervention that will be costly and will have exactly the opposite effects that the Government intend.
  We are also concerned that many much needed measures—for example, a tenancy deposit scheme and compulsory leasing of homes that have been empty for more than 12 months—have not found their way into the Bill. We shall certainly try to persuade the Government in Committee to think again on the omissions.
  It is right to start by welcoming much of what is in the Bill and I also welcome the process to which it has been subject. It is not the first item of legislation to go through the draft Bill process, with evidence taken by the relevant Select Committee, but the changes that the Government have made between the draft and the final stage show that they have listened. The House owes the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning and Local Government Committee a real debt for the evidence that it took and the work that it did, which has improved the Bill. That is good for Parliament, allowing it to deal with the mountain of legislation emanating from the Government in a rather more considered way. The Government deserve credit for that.
  I shall examine the legislative proposals for houses in multiple occupation in more detail. The evidence to suggest that people living in some of the HMOs covered by the Bill face real dangers from fire and other health and safety problems—and in a way that other tenants do not—is considerable. The Department accepts that, and other independent studies have demonstrated it, so licensing the HMO sector is welcome.
  We will have some debates and disagreements with the Government on the fine details of the Bill. As was said earlier, the fact that university-provided accommodation is excluded does not make sense, and there are also some problems with definitions. We want to probe the Government in Committee on, for example, the definition that ties HMO regulation to three-storey buildings and five occupants. That might be rather too narrow. Perhaps we should decouple the terms to make it an "and" rather than an "or". Those are obviously debates that we shall conduct in Committee.
  As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) said, when in opposition, the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire argued for regulation of HMOs with just four occupants, so it appears that the Front-Bench team have changed their minds in passing from opposition to government, and they will have to provide good reason for doing so—
  Mr. Simon Thomas: All too frequent.
  Mr. Davey: As the hon. Gentleman says, that has happened all too frequently.
  The fitness standards needed updating, but we have some concerns about whether what is proposed will work. The Government went through a good pilot process, in which local authorities were involved in assessing whether the new housing, health and safety rating system would work in practice. Version one appears not to have worked in practice. Version two is

  557
  now published and we have the guidelines, but it has not been piloted or trialled, so the House is being asked to accept a new system of regulation for fitness standards in housing without knowing whether it can be made to work. The House should think carefully about that.
  The Minister will be aware that others—from the Local Government Association to various lobby groups for people with disabilities—are concerned that the rating system does not go far enough with respect to fire sprinklers or access for the disabled, so that is another issue for debate in Committee.
  Selective licensing, as I have already said, is the right way forward and we are very pleased that the Government have dropped their proposals to cut housing benefit to people accused and found guilty of antisocial behaviour. The Liberal Democrats believe that that would have made antisocial behaviour worse. It would have seen people thrown out of their homes with no due regard to where they would have to go or how their problems could be dealt with. We are glad that the Government have dropped that proposal and believe that the Bill probably provides the right way forward.
  On selective licensing, has the Minister considered selectively licensing individuals rather than areas? Many of us know from our constituency work that selectively licensing all landlords would be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, when only one or two landlords might be the serial offenders who are causing the real problem. If licensing were not just about areas, but individual landlords, we could perhaps have a slightly lighter-touch regime. It may cause problems, but we should debate whether it might be a different way forward that could achieve the Government's aims with less of a regulatory burden.
  On the measures that I have described, the Liberal Democrats will enter into constructive debate with the Government in Committee. Regulation is sometimes needed, but we must ensure that we get the balance right.
  The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon complained that this is a cluttered and confusing approach that will prove to be a regulatory web. He may have a point, but there is a balance to be struck, and I look forward to debating with him and his colleagues whether the Government have got that balance right. It is clear that to try to regulate the whole of the private rented sector would be to go over the top; such regulation is not needed. In targeting regulation, we should not create a burden and penalise good landlords. Indeed, it is worth acknowledging that there are some very good landlords in the private sector—a point that has yet to be made today. If we are to avoid having to regulate them, we may have to create regulation that does not look pretty, but actually gets the job done.
  After describing all those good things, I want to spend most of my speech pointing out the ways in which we disagree with the Government; indeed, there are some serious areas of disagreement. The first problem and major criticism relates to the home information packs, and it is the main reason why we will vote against the Bill tonight, although we will do so in the hope that we can vote for it on Third Reading—if we can persuade the Government to improve it. We are surprised that the Government are persisting with the packs, given the amount of opposition to them not just from
  558
  professional bodies, but from the people who actually buy and sell houses. [Interruption.] Labour Members are muttering about vested interests, but the only body that they seem capable of quoting is the Consumers Association, as if it had some biblical significance. I shall seek to argue that consumers will be badly affected if the legislation goes through, in terms of cost, delays and lack of choice of affordable housing. Indeed, the Government will experience a real political backlash from consumers.
  Andrew Bennett: The hon. Gentleman prayed in aid the Select Committee's preliminary scrutiny, but has he read the evidence from Maria Coleman, who demonstrated beyond doubt that a progressive and effective estate agent can make the seller's pack work to the benefit of a great many people who are buying and selling properties?
  Mr. Davey: But many of those who gave evidence to the Select Committee, which the hon. Gentleman chairs, argued differently; indeed, the Committee's own report was hardly complimentary about home information packs. Paragraph 93 states:
  "However, it is unclear to what extent the Pack will serve the Government's objective of speeding up the process of residential property sales".
  Much of the evidence that the hon. Gentleman heard backs up that view.
  Let me be clear: the problem is not home information packs themselves. The Government could go ahead with legislation setting out what home information packs are, and could make them available for the market to take forward. They could also legislate to make energy audit compulsory before sale, as the directive states. The problem with the Government's approach is that they are making such packs compulsory before marketing. If they could address that issue, they might be able to persuade us that the provision has some merit.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: I am listening to what the hon. Gentleman says, and he is absolutely right to point out that specialist professional organisations are divided on this issue. However, if the Government are minded to put home information packs on the statute book, is it not all the more important that they should at first be used on a voluntary basis, to see how the system works? It is a complicated and complex system, and we should see how it works in practice across the whole country before making it a statutory requirement.
  Mr. Davey: Absolutely—indeed, we should let the market decide. If consumers value the packs, they will roll out automatically and the market will take them up. So there is no need for the Government to impose this burdensome and costly regulation on the sector, thereby creating all the problems that I am about to allude to.
  Matthew Green: Is not the essence of the problem the fact that such packs are mandatory at the point at which people market their house? If someone puts their house on the market and nobody views it within six months, they will still have coughed up £600—in some cases, £1,000—in order to produce a pack. If they want to put

  559
  the house back on the market a little later, they will probably have to update the pack, which will cost even more. People could shell out a lot of money and never sell their properties.
  Mr. Davey: My hon. Friend is of course exactly right.
  Mr. Simon Thomas:I tend to agree with the Liberal Democrats on most housing issues, but not on this one. I should declare an interest, in that I am £400 out of pocket, having had a survey done on a house and then been gazumped. Is it not the case that one third of sales fall through and that home information packs could help those who are losing out as they try to buy houses? I would not be against some form of voluntary scheme to start with, but is there not a good idea in the Bill that needs teasing out?
  Mr. Davey: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments, but if he looks at the matter in detail, as I have done, I think he will change his mind. I originally had some sympathy for the idea, but the more I looked into it the more ludicrous it seemed and I questioned my initial gut feeling.
  When one looks into the Government's rationale, it begins to become clear why this is a bad measure. The Government argue that the change will speed up the transaction process. First of all, however, we have to ask whether there is actually a problem that needs solving. A lot of transactions go through effectively: we have a thriving owner-occupied housing market, as the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon said, and between 1.2 million and 1.5 million homes change hands every year without Government regulation. That does not suggest to me that there is a significant problem that needs the heavy hand of Government regulation.
  Let us accept for a moment, however, that there is a problem and that perhaps 10 per cent. of home sales do not go through as smoothly as they might. What is the best way forward in that case? It is not necessarily the Government's approach. As has been said, many other things are happening that will speed up the process. The Law Society's transaction scheme will enable information to be provided far more effectively to all parties. Improvements to the National Land Information Service, e-lodgement at the Land Registry, e-conveyancing as it develops, and efforts at local authority level are all practical things that the Government need to address, and are addressing. When those developments come into place, home information packs will be redundant.
  Mr. David Kidney: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the Government's first argument is not that these proposals will speed up the process but that they will give more information to the consumer? Will he also acknowledge that the figures that he has just given are wrong? The Government's research shows that about 1.8 million properties are offered for sale on the market each year and that about 580,000 transactions fail before they reach exchange of contract, which is a rate of about 30 per cent.
  Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman must be careful when he quotes Government research. As I understand
  560
  it, the original research commissioned by the Government for England and Wales was provided by PS Martin Hamblin, which even now does not list property as one of its specialist market sectors. The Scottish Executive, on the other hand, commissioned research by property experts, DTZ Pieda Consulting, which found results completely at odds with the Government's. There are two different sets of research results. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may try to suggest that Scotland is completely different. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is".] I am afraid that it is not completely different. The evidence from the Scottish Executive says that delays in house transactions come from two main sources—sellers delaying the transaction to give themselves longer to find a new home, which, I am afraid, does happen in England and Wales, and delays caused by buyers whose mortgage finance was not in place, which is also the experience in England and Wales.
  David Wright: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the Minister's opening analysis that the packs will help first-time buyers? I recently met a couple who had attempted three searches on new properties, all of which fell through. The proposal will help first-time buyers. Is he against that?
  Mr. Davey: It will not help first-time buyers. Fewer houses will come on to the market. [Interruption.]
  David Wright indicated dissent.
  Mr. Davey: Hon. Members may say "rubbish". Let me explain why it is not. If one must obtain a home information pack and must spend several weeks before then, paying the cost up front, that will be a deterrent for a lot of people who are coming on to the market. Someone may have gone out for the weekend, with his wife, and seen a house that they want to buy. They couple may want to sell their house as quickly as possible to make sure that they purchase the house that they have seen. In future, such speculative buyers will not arise and will not market their homes, which will mean fewer affordable houses and house prices going up. The effect will be the opposite of what the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) said it would be.
  Mr. John Hayes: Is it not bizarre that the first-time buyers who will be exercising the right to buy—people who have never bought a house in their lives—will not have access to the reports that the Government claim will be so helpful to purchasers?
  Mr. Davey: I think that Labour Members are right. My reading of the Bill is that such people will have access to the reports. Local authorities may be worried because their housing departments may face some extra costs, and registered social landlords may also be worried. We may return to that debate in Committee.
  Andrew Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it might be a good idea to cut down the number of people who speculatively put their houses on the market? Many people put their houses up for sale, get a prospective buyer and then pull out when they find that

  561
  they cannot buy somewhere else. If they had had to prepare a buyer's pack, it would prove that they were serious sellers and not someone playing in the market.
  Mr. Davey: It is not the Government's job to predetermine who is a serious seller. The process of marketing a property is not straightforward because people's lives change from week to week—they may be offered a promotion that means that they must move somewhere else in the country. Life is not as simple as some Labour Members wish to suggest.
  Several hon. Members Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Davey: If I can make some progress, I will take interventions later. The problem is that the proposal will increase delays in the system that it is supposed to speed up. I have suggested that delays will occur in marketing, and there is also the issue of duplication. The law of contract is about caveat emptor—let the buyer beware. The Bill changes that principle, which is a serious mistake. Buyers will examine the home condition report in the home information pack with a degree of scepticism. I would certainly want my own home condition report. so I would need a second one, especially if a home needed a structural survey. Such duplication would not speed up the process.
  Another problem is the availability of sufficient trained staff—the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon made this point powerfully. It is estimated that we will need between 5,000 and 8,000 people just to do the extra surveys. Surveys will be needed for homes that will not be sold or repeated by buyers. Where will those people come from and who will meet the cost? If we get a new breed of inspector who is not a fully qualified chartered surveyor, will insurance companies indemnify reports completed by less well trained inspectors? I think not.
  We have come to the point that gives the lie to the Minister's continual quoting of the Consumers Association. If consumers buy a property on the basis of a home condition report completed by a less well trained inspector, which may not have the backing of the insurance industry, their consumer protection will be reduced, not increased. I cannot see how it is in consumers' interests to have greater costs through duplication. The Government are laying the ground for a repeat of the mis-selling of pensions scandal. If the legislation is enacted, in a few years' time there will be the mis-surveying of homes scandal, and if that proves to be the case the blame will certainly lie with the Government.
  Another element of the legislation that will work against consumers' interests is the fact that home information packs will reduce competition in the market for estate agents and people who help others to market homes. People increasingly use the internet to look for homes or to sell their own homes without going through estate agents. The legislation will prevent that and undermine competition.
  The most staggering of the Bill's omissions is that the Government have failed to include a regulatory framework for a tenancy deposit scheme. There is a large amount of support on both sides of the House for such a scheme; there have been trials, a voluntary
  562
  scheme, a consultation process and statements from Ministers suggesting that they were in favour of the scheme. The Bill offers a parliamentary vehicle for that much needed measure, yet the Government are blowing it. Even the pre-Budget report gave an indication that the Treasury thought the scheme would be a good idea, but the Government are not taking this opportunity to put it into practice.
  There would be benefits not only for tenants but for landlords. The private rented sector would be far more attractive if people's deposits were secure and well looked after. What are the Government's arguments for not introducing legislation on the issue? First, they say that there is no parliamentary time. Well, the Bill certainly has enough parliamentary time—we shall be in Committee for quite a while.
  Secondly, the Government point to the Law Commission. However, the Law Commission was given a completely different remit, which did not include the proposal for a tenancy deposit scheme. In November, when the commission published its interim report, the proposal was not even touched on. If we wait for the Law Commission to consider the matter, there will be a delay not merely of months but of years, as its final report will be subject to consultation. If the House misses this opportunity to legislate on a tenancy deposit scheme, there will be a delay of several years.
  Tenants have waited far too long already. There will be much abuse and many deposits will not be returned by unscrupulous private landlords during the years that we shall have to wait.
  Labour Members may have read the briefing provided for the parliamentary Labour party, which suggests that the case for a tenancy deposit scheme has not been well made. For example, it refers to finely balanced benefits and costs and suggests that the benefits of the scheme would amount to only £20 million a year whereas the costs would be £19 million. However, if Labour Members read that briefing carefully, they will find that the figure of £19 million is completely false. It is based on the assumption that every tenant in the scheme would go to the adjudicator with a quarrel about the management of their deposit. In fact, evidence from Australia and New Zealand shows that only between 2 and 3 per cent. of tenants take their case to the adjudicator, so the actual costs of running the scheme would be tiny compared with the amounts cited in the PLP briefing.
  The briefing also includes an interesting line that refers to the interest forgone by landlords as one of the costs. Surely, the interest on the deposit should go to the tenant, not the landlord. Labour Members should ask Ministers why they have not answered questions properly and why they oppose a scheme that should have been brought in years ago.
  The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton raised an issue about which I feel particularly strongly: the Government's failure to legislate on empty homes. They have circulated a consultation paper, which refers to empty property management orders. That would be a good way forward. The Government are consulting on the issue, but they could use the Bill to tackle the problem. The Minister made several references to affordable housing in his opening remarks. One of the quickest, cheapest and most environmentally

  563
  sustainable ways of dealing with the problem of affordable housing would be to ensure that empty homes are brought back into use. It is a scandal that there are hundreds of thousands of empty homes that could be used for homeless people or people living in poor accommodation.
  The Government should get on with the job. They should get on with the consultation process and ensure that provisions are included in the Bill before we lose this parliamentary opportunity. The provisions would fit well in the part of the Bill that deals with interim and final management orders. Such a structure has links with some of the proposals in the consultation paper.
  The Government should introduce legislation on park homes, as has been mentioned. They should provide a new and up-to-date definition of overcrowding, as we need to understand the extent of the problem so that we can plan housing policy properly.
  We have some concerns about the Government's proposal to enable the Housing Corporation to give grants to private developers, although the House may be surprised to learn that we are not quite as opposed to it as the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, who seemed extremely worried by it. In fact, the arguments are finely balanced. The idea that the private sector cannot be given money to build affordable social housing does not seem wrong in principle. Perhaps we should allow different types of provider—mutuals, RSLs and the private sector—to build affordable homes if that is the most effective use of taxpayers' money. There may be problems—such as those of accountability, about which we have heard—and we need to ensure that the RSL sector will not be damaged, given that some in that sector use that money to cross-subsidise the provision and repair of their other housing stock. We will want to tease out some issues, but we will not necessarily be completely against that proposal.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Wales—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh no."] The mention of Wales seems to have engaged some interest among Labour Members. Is he aware that, in Wales, the same social housing grant is used to subsidise the purchase of private accommodation by those who seek to buy their own homes, using the home-buy grant? That has been extremely successful in Wales, in working for both the private sector and people who seek affordable homes for the first time. Surely that combination might represent an alternative way to use such money in England as well, perhaps using those resources in conjunction with the private sector.
  Mr. Davey: That is very helpful. I did not know that, and I am sure that that option will be considered as a way forward in Committee.
  Jeremy Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davey: His hon. Friends will not like it, but I will give way.
  Jeremy Corbyn: I am sure that they will be very happy. As the hon. Gentleman is on the subject of social
  564
  housing, would he care to say whether he will have a word with his Liberal Democrat friends who run Islington council? At present, they are selling vacant council street property on the open market by auction, so many people who are desperate for somewhere decent to live have lost that opportunity altogether because those properties have been sold off to the private sector. Is it Liberal Democrat policy to reduce the size of the public sector, or to increase it?
  Mr. Davey: I wonder what my friends in Islington are using that money for—perhaps it is being invested in more affordable housing. All I remember is that, when they took control of Islington, they were left a complete mess by the previous, Labour council and they are putting it right. That is why the Office of the Deputy Prime has increased their rating in the comprehensive performance assessment and thinks that they are doing a much better job than when Islington was under Labour control, so the hon. Gentleman should be slightly more careful.
  In conclusion, when one is trying to dream up regulations whether for the private rented sector or the owner-occupied sector, one must tread very carefully. On the private rented sector, the Government have taken a very careful and sensitive approach. They have consulted and they have listened, and they are to be congratulated on that approach. However, with respect to the owner-occupied sector—with home information packs, in particular—they have failed to listen. They may have consulted—they have certainly done so for a while—but they have not listened to the logical arguments against their proposals. The Barker review suggests that the Government should not go down that route, yet, typically, their thinking does not appear to be joined up. The Government need to think again about home information packs, and I hope that my hon. Friends and other hon. Members, including Labour Back Benchers, will make them do so before we reach Third Reading.
  5.28 pm
  Ms Ann Coffey: I welcome the Bill, particularly those clauses that will give greater powers to social landlords, including councils, to deal with antisocial behaviour on the part of their tenants. I should like to take this opportunity to raise some issues related to those clauses. I fully support the extension of powers to deal with antisocial behaviour, but for those powers to be effective, it is important that front-line staff, particularly housing officers, who are being asked to take enforcement action feel confident to do so. After all, some tenants have a long history of persistent antisocial behaviour and can react to any enforcement action with threats and abuse against those who are seen to be the instigators of such action—usually other tenants, although housing officers also come in for their fair share of the abuse, so it is important that, at the same time as extending powers to deal with antisocial behaviour, we ensure that there is protection for the staff who have to enforce the legislation.
  Of course, existing provisions to deal with antisocial behaviour against staff have been introduced—for example, in the Housing Act 1996 and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Clause 13 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 introduced a new provision that

  565
  included the possibility of obtaining injunctions where the behaviour in question was capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to staff employed by the landlord in connection with stock management. A power of arrest is also available where there is a significant risk of harm to staff, which can include emotional or psychological harm. Section 12 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 places a new duty on social landlords to publish antisocial behaviour policies. Antisocial behaviour for that purpose is defined as conduct
  "which is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person, and which directly or indirectly relates to or affects the housing management functions of a relevant landlord."
  Those provisions give power to social landlords to deal with antisocial tenants and, clearly, that also includes antisocial behaviour to staff.
  I have concerns, however, arising from the experience of one of my constituents about the effectiveness of the powers. My constituent is a senior housing officer working for Stockport council. Unusually, she is also a housing association tenant living on a council estate that has a history of antisocial behaviour by some families. The facts are not disputed. In the course of her job last March, she sent a letter to a tenant threatening enforcement action unless the garden was tidied up. Relatives of the tenant to whom she had written discovered where she lived. There then followed a campaign of harassment directed at her 11-year-old daughter, which included nuisance telephone calls that were reported to the police. There is no dispute that the telephone calls were made from the house of the tenant whom my constituent had threatened with enforcement action.
  The council offered to start possession proceedings against the tenant, but said that that could be done only with my constituent's co-operation. She felt unable to co-operate because she was concerned that if the family had reacted to a letter about tidying up their garden with harassment and intimidation of her daughter, any further action might put her daughter further at risk. That is an all-too-familiar story from witnesses and victims of harassment.
  My constituent asked to be re-housed by the council, but it refused to deal with her application for re-housing outside its allocations system, saying that
  "the current assumption is that staff are treated like all other people"
  and that there is
  "no policy of the council either in the allocations policy or in the human resources policy to suggest that employees suffering difficulty should have preferential access to service".
  The council also said that
  "our duty as an employer does not extend to your housing situation".
  In a letter, the assistant housing director stated that in the interviews that my constituent had had to try to resolve the situation,
  "you have seemed to be centring on your need for re-housing".
  The letter went on to say that
  "there are separate roles here as employer and as service provider".
  I might add that the council re-houses people with priority needs outside the allocations system through a special panel. The issue is whether my constituent, as a
  566
  senior housing officer, has such needs. Indeed, the position of the council would suggest that as a member of staff she is actually at a disadvantage in attempting to argue special need.
  In the event, my constituent was awarded 25 points after applying for re-housing to reflect, according to the chief executive,
  "a member of the household having being subjected to confirmed harassment, intimidation, physical/sexual abuse, violence/threatened violence or hate crime."
  However, that is not a sufficient number of points for her to be re-housed where she would feel safe. No enforcement action can be taken against the family because she is afraid of further acts against her daughter. She has been off work since September with stress.
  So, the powers cannot be used to deal with antisocial behaviour in that situation because my constituent feels that further enforcement will place her daughter at risk. The council will not re-house her because it has a policy that does not give its staff special treatment for its services. In that situation, a family is getting away with antisocial behaviour because without re-housing, the housing officer does not feel able to co-operate in using the available powers, which would deal with that family if they were used.
  I do not think that it is our intention to put staff in that situation. All of us expect special treatment if our job makes us vulnerable. I would expect, as a Member of Parliament, that if I had concerns about threats from a particular constituent, I would get special treatment from the police. As home owners, we can move if we are concerned about our safety, but a council or housing association tenant cannot. They are dependent on their landlord, and I would suggest that if their landlord is also their employer who is asking them to take enforcement action, that puts them in a very special position.
  Stockport council does not agree with me. I am worried that it will be insufficient to ask councils to have policies to deal with antisocial behaviour if they are not also asked to have policies to protect the staff who are asked to enforce those policies. We are asking front-line civilian staff to enforce more and more legislation to tackle antisocial behaviour. Why should they do that if they cannot also rely on our protection? I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister for consideration to be given in Committee to the guidance issued to local authorities on how they draw up their antisocial behaviour policies, especially in circumstances in which a member of staff is also a recipient of a service.
  I welcome the clause that will enable caravan dwellers to apply for the disabled facilities grant. I understand that both tenants and home owners may apply for the grant. In Stockport council, as in many councils, council tenants, such as my constituent Mr. Johnson, who apply for showers because they have difficulty getting in or out of the bath have to wait up to three years for them, but private tenants and home owners with the same level of need do not wait at all. The ability of older people to wash and look after themselves is important for their dignity and sense of independence. It is heartbreaking to hear from people who have to wait for months and years for adaptations such as showers because they are council tenants.

  567
  It is not open to that council tenant to apply for a disabled facilities grant for a shower because, as such a tenant, he does not receive the application form from the council. The council effectively has two systems for dealing with applications: one for council tenants and one for everyone else. That cannot be right because it has the consequence that council tenants with disabilities are discriminated against. If I am right in thinking that council tenants may apply for the disabled facilities grant, I hope that the Minister will make it clear that it is unacceptable for councils to exclude council tenants from applying for the grant if they wish to do so.
  Andrew Bennett: Will my hon. Friend also make a plea to the Liberal Front-Bench spokesman to try to persuade the Liberal council in Stockport to be a little more liberal in its policy?
  Ms Coffey: I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) heard my hon. Friend's words.
  If I am wrong in thinking that council tenants may apply for the disabled facilities grant, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will take the opportunity in Committee to enable council tenants, as well as caravan dwellers, to apply for the grant.
  I warmly welcome the measures in the Bill to enable social landlords to deal with antisocial behaviour. The quality of life of tenants is dependent on their landlords' ability and commitment to deal with the bad behaviour of the minority. The Bill will give social landlords extra powers to deal with such unacceptable behaviour, and it is therefore very much to be welcomed.
  5.37 pm
  Charles Hendry: Considerable attention has already been paid to the key issues that have been omitted from the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) highlighted the lack of measures to tackle the problem of empty houses and to support park home residents. I support the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) in identifying the omission of a tenancy deposit scheme, which is an overdue measure. I am also disappointed that the Government have excluded from the Bill a range of other measures to tackle problems with housing today, and I shall focus on a few of them.
  It is disappointing that the Government have not taken the opportunity to tackle the problems in rent-charged housing developments. Under the current system, a company or trust is responsible for the upkeep of the common parts of such developments. Although the majority of the schemes work well, there is tremendous scope for abuse. One such example of that occurs in the Harmers Hay estate in Hailsham in my constituency. The company seems to be accountable to no one. It doubled its rent charges after giving assurances that it would not, and went on to try to apply them retrospectively. Steps are urgently needed to ensure that there is full transparency on rent-charged estates so that people may see where their money is going, why it is being raised and that proper accounting standards apply.
  568
  Patricia Herridge, the chairman of the Harmers Hay company, has pointedly refused to provide information on how much the company has raised through rent charging, how that money has been spent or the payments that have been made to directors of the company. No audited accounts have been provided to local residents. That situation is unacceptable, as has been recognised by the Minister for Housing and Planning, who wrote to me on 6 October:
  "The Parliamentary Select Committee on housing has also expressed an interest in the issue and it is intended that the problems of abuses levied by some rent charge owners should be remedied at the earliest possible date."
  Surely the Bill offers us the ideal opportunity to do so.
  I am disappointed that the Government are not using this opportunity to address the problem of land packaging, a scam whereby an unscrupulous developer breaks up a piece of land that is highly unlikely to be given permission to be developed into small portions, which he sells off at perhaps tens of thousands of pounds. A case in point is the proposed Groombridge Grove development in my constituency. Dishonest people are selling land, implying that a plot has full planning permission while in reality people are buying something that is good for nothing. The sellers even go to the elaborate lengths of producing glossy brochures and staking out plots to give the impression that the land has received planning permission. The scam is targeted at members of the Asian community because it is assumed that they know less about the laws relating to development. Will the home information packs stop that scam? Will they apply to plots of land as well as to homes that have already been built? If not, what steps do the Government propose to take to deal with that?
  The Minister spoke about the need to license houses in multiple occupation. We all agree with that. He specifically referred to the problems that arise from the lack of smoke alarms in such properties. We all want that situation improved. However, a smoke detector that is placed in the recommended place in a property, at the top of a staircase, will not detect a fire that starts in a bedroom. By the time it does, when the smoke is moving through the house, it is almost certainly too late to stop devastating damage and possibly loss of life.
  I hope that the Minister will go further than he currently proposes and consider making it compulsory to install water sprinklers, especially in houses in multiple occupation and, ideally, new-built houses. The right hon. Gentleman's colleague the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope), recently met a delegation from my constituency consisting of Richard Kent, whose two sons were killed in a fire in their home, one of them a firefighter who was trying to save his brother. The fire occurred a year ago, in early January last year. Had water sprinklers been installed, the fire would have been extinguished within moments. The smoke detectors went off, but because the doors were closed it was too late for his son to be saved when the fire was identified. The Under-Secretary was sympathetic, and I hope that the Government accept that legislation should require the installation of water sprinklers in new properties, especially in houses in multiple occupation, to save lives.
  Last year I asked a parliamentary question on the subject, the answer to which demonstrates the seriousness of the issue. Over the five years for which

  569
  figures are available, from 1997 to 2001, not one person was killed in a property where a water sprinkler had been installed and there was a fire, although there were more than 500 fires in such properties. However, 2,465 people lost their lives in homes where water sprinklers had not been installed. The Government are investigating the matter, and the current Bill offers the ideal opportunity to require action to be taken so that we can cut down on such terrible and unnecessary deaths.
  I also hope that the Minister will take the opportunity offered by the Bill to clarify the questions that surround people's entitlement to social housing, in particular the question of who is defined as a vulnerable person. Uckfield in my constituency has a tremendous project, the Malthouse project, run by the Kenward Trust, which does enormously valuable work helping people who are addicted to alcohol or drugs. Unfortunately, when those people try to enter society again having gone through a programme of perhaps two or three years of rehabilitation, it is difficult for them to find housing because they are not deemed a priority case and not classed as vulnerable. I have raised the issue with Wealden district council, which says that they are not included in the Government's definition of "vulnerable." Surely few people could be considered as being more vulnerable than someone who has come back from the brink of death through drug or alcohol abuse and who, after many months or years of trying to deal with those problems, cannot find accommodation in the community where they have support and friends, and where they want to go on living. They often find that they have to move back to the communities where they originally came from and risk encountering the same problems again. I hope that the Minister will use this opportunity to clarify how that issue can be tackled.
  I support many of the measures in the Bill, including the licensing of HMOs to raise the standard of accommodation and the proposal to allow the transfer of tenancies to same-sex partners. The latter is overdue, and the current situation is iniquitous. However, many aspects of the Bill are misguided and unclear, and too many issues have simply been overlooked. In East Sussex, we are being forced by the Deputy Prime Minister—who has probably never even tried to squeeze his Jaguar down the narrow lanes to the county—to accept tens of thousands of new houses, which people overwhelmingly do not want. The Bill does nothing to reduce the threat of environmental destruction on a massive scale posed by the building of those houses. Nor will it help young people who are driven away from communities where they grew up by the lack of affordable housing—most of the new housing will be executive homes and therefore far too expensive for them to aspire to.
  The Bill is a wasted opportunity; it shows that the Government talk a lot about improving the quality of our housing stock but duck the issues that would lead to the right solutions.
  5.45 pm
  Andrew Bennett: I apologise for missing the first few minutes of the Minister's speech. I was appearing before the social security commissioners, trying to plead on behalf of one of my constituents.
  570
  I want to place on record my appreciation of all those members of the Select Committee who did the pre-legislative scrutiny, all the staff in the Committee Office, who worked so hard, and our advisers, Dave Beach and John Bryson. I believe that we did a very good job in scrutinising the Bill, and I welcome the moves that the Government have made since our report was published.
  My only caveat is that we had to do our work in a very short period. I welcome the Government's use of pre-legislative scrutiny, but I want to make it clear to them that if it is to work, we need a little more time. I know that this year proposals for regional assemblies will appear in pre-legislative form, and I plead with the Government to make sure that the Select Committee can see the draft Bill in time to report, so that the Government can then take the report into account before the legislation is introduced. Pre-legislative scrutiny is great, but more time is needed—not so much for the Select Committee, which suffers a bit, but for the people who submit evidence. We want as much time as possible to get evidence from as wide a range of people as possible.
  When I used to teach—quite a long time ago, I admit—people talked about the Education Act 1944. Twenty or 30 years after it was passed, it was the one Act that dominated people in education. I have looked back over the time since 1997 and tried to pick out an Act that we remember as landmark legislation—[Interruption.] There is the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, but there is not much else. We have got into the habit of having salami slices, or even wafer-thin cucumber slices, of legislation. We get a piece one year, another the next year and so on. I plead with the Government, even at this stage, to make this a landmark Bill. Let us have everything that is already in it as well as everything that we were asked to add. It should be possible for both Houses of Parliament to scrutinise a big Bill just as effectively as they would a smaller one.
  My next plea is for the Government to trust local authorities a little more. In the licensing of houses in multiple occupation and of landlords, the Government should be considering a general power to let local authorities set up licensing and then let them decide whether an HMO has to have two or three storeys or four or five tenants. Houses vary fantastically across the country, and there are places where two-storey houses with four tenants are just as, or even more, vulnerable than taller, bigger houses elsewhere. The Government have a good record on trusting local authorities, but they should be prepared to express that trust in the Bill.
  We need a bit more information quickly about the practicalities of the fitness standards, and I plead strongly for a clear Government commitment to provide more money to train people to make the system operate. In addition, there should be a safeguard to ensure that applying the fitness standards and relating them to the people who are in the property does not discriminate against vulnerable people. That is one of the concerns about the standards. It seems logical to link the two issues, but we must be careful.
  There is a lot of logic in favour of seller's packs, but we have to move slowly. I was surprised by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) coming to the defence of estate agents. I should have thought that many people in this country are pretty dissatisfied with estate agents. The trouble is that a lot of

  571
  people do not make a sensible choice of estate agent. I understand why that happens. Buyers do not go around a town like Stockport looking for the best estate agent; they look for the best house and have to put up with the estate agent who happens to be handling the sale. Many sellers get two or three estate agents to value their property, but the temptation is to go with the estate agent who suggests the highest price—I suspect that that is one of the reasons for the continuing escalation of house prices. In short, people do not often make valid decisions on estate agents, which is one of the reasons why there are so many problems.
  The seller's pack can be made to work, although if it is to be compulsory, there must be plenty of time to phase it in, and two further issues have to be dealt with. We can solve the problem of areas of low demand if the Government provide that the seller's pack is to be paid for only when the house has been sold. Any talk of not having to pay for it if the property will fetch less than £20,000 or £25,000, and red-lining those areas that do not qualify, would be disastrous. The simple answer is for people get the seller's pack when they put their house up for sale, but pay for it only when the sale goes through. That would solve the problem of areas of low demand, although it might cost the Government a little.
  Sadly, in all the evidence that we received there was none about the top end of the market. However, I have recently received a couple of letters about the problem that allegedly applies in parts of Cheshire where there are listed buildings or period houses, and—this is a bit Unfair—footballers with more money than sense. It will be difficult to find people with the specialist knowledge needed to produce a seller's pack for some of those old houses, which may have listed status, where the questions asked might include whether the snooker table can be put in the master bedroom, or similar queries. Perhaps the Government will consider making an exemption at the top end of the market, or one based on the age of the property.
  There is no excuse for not putting the tenants' deposit scheme in the Bill. The position of both good tenants and good landlords has deteriorated. Time and again one hears of good tenants getting ripped off because they did not get back their whole deposit, or any part of it—and landlords, especially those in student areas, getting ripped off because they implemented a deposit scheme, but the knowing student did not pay the last month or two months' rent as a balance against the deposit that they might not get back.
  More must be done about overcrowding. The Select Committee visited the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) and saw some horrendous overcrowding there. I agree with Shelter's assertion that there should be more in the Bill about that.
  Compulsory leasing would make a huge difference in areas where the property market is going down. It is likely that few compulsory leases would, in fact, be needed: merely the threat would make a huge difference. If the Bill is to be a good one, it should contain something about that.
  A plea from my constituency concerns ground rents. In 1978, my predecessor Ken Marks got a piece of legislation on ground rents through the House. They are
  572
  an anachronism, but an increasing number of sharks buy up a lot of ground rents, then threaten people, saying that if they have not asked for planning permission for their garden shed or things like that, all sorts of penalties would apply. That legislation must be reviewed.
  Park homes should be in the Bill. Gypsies made the point strongly to the Select Committee that the concept of homes should cover both static homes and gypsy sites.
  My plea to the Government at this stage is to make sure that everything in the Bill gets through, but to make it a bigger Bill because there are an awful lot of housing needs that could be met and should be met, but are not being met.
  5.55 pm
  Mrs. Angela Browning: My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) and others who have spoken in the debate said that we would table amendments in Committee to incorporate in the Bill reform of park home legislation. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), who is nodding, has been a great champion of the need for such a reform. In a letter that he sent to me as a fellow member of the all-party park home owners group last July, he pointed out that
  "In their response to the report of the Park Homes Working Group in July 2000, the Government identified 13 issues on which they are prepared to legislate".
  If that was the case so long ago, the reform has been a long time coming. In their response to the recommendations of the working party, the Government categorically stated those parts of the document on which they were prepared to act, using language such as:
  "We propose therefore to delete this provision from the legislation",
  and
  "We will consider this option when taking forward the suggestions for changes identified to the implied terms."
  In other words, those of us who take an interest in the issue have for four years expected the Government to make some much needed changes.
  I realise that, as with all legislation, not everything we ask for will be agreed to or put into the Bill, but last year I introduced the Park Home Reform Bill, and although, being a ten-minute Bill, it did not get very far, the fact that I had a waiting list of hon. Members of all parties keen to put their name to the Bill serves to demonstrate the cross-party support for such a measure. My Bill generated a great deal of correspondence with hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  Many aspects of park homes legislation need to be sorted out, but there are two primary reasons to implement reform. First, the people who live in park homes and who face problems daily should be treated with justice and fairness. Secondly, affordable housing is at the heart of the Bill, and if anything can be said to embody affordable housing, it is park homes. Park homes are less expensive than other types of housing, and they are probably one of the most economical forms of housing in terms of land use. Such housing favours the elderly in particular—although not exclusively—

  573
  because people often buy a park home when they retire, perhaps after renting their accommodation throughout their working life. The vast majority of the 200,000 park homes in the country are owner-occupied, not let.
  Many people who move into other types of property that we want to free up would move into a park home were it not for the increasingly loud warning bells ringing about park home ownership. Such warnings are starting to put people off buying a park home, which is a bad thing for our housing market. We have already heard about bullying and intimidation, which are fairly common. Site owners, as landlords, are not required to recognise properly constituted residents associations. That would be unthinkable if the property were provided by a local authority or housing association.
  Park home residents should enjoy such rights, but their landlords do not share that view. Recently, I dealt with a particularly bad case in which the landlord insisted that the steps to the home—usually, there are just two or three steps—should be made of plastic. He said that any concrete steps would be demolished, and insisted that steps be purchased only from him at the cost of £325, even though their market value was £165. Similarly, if someone buys a new park home they must do so through the landlord, who is often involved in its manufacture and procurement. In any other field, that would be called a restrictive practice, and the Government could easily address it by introducing some basic reforms.
  There are many other important issues to do with the economics of park homes, some of which are controversial. As I said, I do not expect the Government to embrace every single reform that is needed, but they could certainly include a few in the Bill. I am not asking the Minister for "totality"—I am quite happy to compromise and introduce only those provisions that everyone agrees are necessary. That would not be very time consuming, as the need for some of them is so self-evident that putting them on the statute book would not provoke very much dispute. When my Front-Bench colleagues introduce amendments on park homes in Committee, I hope that the Government will look again at this severe omission from the Bill. We have every expectation that something will be done, but Ministers have told us that the subject may be more suitable for a private Member's Bill. The ballot has just taken place but, unfortunately, no one has chosen to introduce a park homes Bill. Given the Government's involvement in the issue and their commitment over the past three years to listening to the problems, they should not leave the solution to the vagaries of a ballot in the House of Commons—they should work with Members on both sides of the House, including many Labour Back Benchers, who support progress in this area. I urge the Minister to take such action.
  Finally, I want to touch on an issue that I raised in an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon. I am concerned about inaccurate information produced by the Land Registry. My experience is purely of the Land Registry in Devon, but doubtless the problem is nation wide and merits investigation. Solicitors must check with the Land Registry when making searches, particularly on purchasers' behalf, and some of them have said in court that they are concerned about inaccurate information. I intend to take up a particular case with Ministers, although I shall not reveal details to the House.
  574
  Solicitors often have to rely on information from Ordnance Survey, particularly when dealing with older houses that are not registered—we have many of those in Devon. As we know, Ordnance Survey maps do not cover the ownership of property, but deal only with geography and topography. All too often, features such as walls and fences, particularly when they are more than 25 years old, are not included by Ordnance Survey. There are cases in my constituency where people have lost land on a transaction as a result of that. I am not suggesting that Ordnance Survey should be made responsible for ownership in its maps, but the Minister must look at the way in which the Land Registry obtains information, collates it and gives it to solicitors.
  What redress is available to people whose transactions go to court, with huge litigation costs, because the Land Registry has provided them with duff information? I am concerned about that problem. so I hope that the Minister will take it on board. If the legislation on the Land Registry requires modification, I hope that he will consider making such a change. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon said in response to my intervention, if data about plots and the land on which houses are situated are not accurate in the first place, all the seller's packs in the world will be meaningless. We must do something to improve that situation.
  6.4 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: First, I apologise to the Minister for missing the first part of his speech, and to other hon. Members. I was delayed by a funeral in Yorkshire.
  I very much welcome the Bill, which keeps a number of important promises that we made at the general election. We have heard quite a lot about social housing, but the Bill's most important provisions deal with what might be described as antisocial housing owned by private landlords. The Bill begins to address problems in the private rented sector that have made life hell for some of the worst-off people in our most deprived localities, who feel neglected, ignored and dispirited because they have been denied something that we all seek for ourselves—to use the time-honoured phrase, the quiet enjoyment of our homes. Awful landlords are providing dreadful accommodation for some very decent people who are sometimes ignored in our debates. Such landlords conspire with criminal and, in some cases, downright evil people whom they accept as tenants, so we hope that the Bill will deal with that.
  The Bill provides great help for people living at risk in houses in multiple occupation. Importantly, at a time of constant attacks on our democracy, it helps councils and local councillors who have been helpless in the face of problems caused by bad private landlords and tenants. They have wanted to help, but have been unable to do so. The situation is also the product of the failure of a substantial part of the market in run-down areas and inadequate regulation. It is our responsibility as legislators to introduce effective legislation, so I welcome the Government's recognition of both those causes.

  575
  In many parts of the country, house prices have rocketed, but that does not apply everywhere. In some areas, prices are static or have even fallen. Nasty absentee private landlords sometimes take over council flats or housing that used to belong to the Coal Board, which they buy for next to nothing. They rake in huge sums of housing benefit, often fraudulently, and hang on in the hope that a publicly funded regeneration scheme will greatly increase the value of their land and property. They are waiting to make a killing, but in the meantime their property is run down and empty. They get in some nasty individuals—people who have been evicted for being bad neighbours somewhere else such as drug addicts running crack houses and drug dens and irresponsible, criminal individuals—who drag down their neighbours' quality of life. They establish themselves in a street or neighbourhood, and gradually spread like a virus, making life intolerable for lots of other people.
  People at the dodgy end of the private rented sector are heavily involved in housing benefit fraud, and are financed by the taxpayer. Housing benefit should be called landlord benefit in many areas, because the tenants certainly do not benefit, the standard of housing does not benefit, and taxpayers are being ripped off because they are getting bad value for money. That has been happening in areas ranging from Sunderland to Burnley and Stoke, so I welcome the Government's proposals, which give councils an opportunity to get a grip on the problem, with the selective licensing and registration of private landlords in areas suffering from antisocial behaviour. Such behaviour is not confined to areas with low housing values—there is some very nasty stuff going on in areas where the general value of housing has been going up. I also welcome the mandatory licensing of higher-risk houses in multiple occupation.
  These provisions come not a minute too soon. They impose obligations on landlords and at long last give local councils powers to help local people: if they vote in the right councillors, they will get some action to look after them, which is important if we are to sustain our local democracy. Councils will have power to require landlords to bring property up to date, to manage it properly and to deal with bad tenants. If landlords fail, councils will have a duty to take over the management of property.
  There may be shortcomings in the proposals—they may need strengthening. As the Tories have criticised the proposals, I look forward to them supporting changes in Committee and on Report to strengthen the measures to tackle the problem of private landlords. I know that the measures have been introduced partly as a result of representations made by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who cannot be here, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). What we are seeing is a Labour Government doing the right thing by the worst-off people in the worst-off neighbourhoods. Taken together with the recently announced measures to tackle loan sharks, we are giving a real boost to the quality of life of some of the most deprived people in the most deprived neighbourhoods.
  576
  Interestingly, all those factors demonstrate the failure of markets in relation to houses in multiple occupation and bad private landlords. The existence of loan sharks, too, shows that the finance sector does not always work properly in relation to people who want to borrow but are skint—many of us have been in such circumstances at one time or another. There is a need for regulation. These days, one might sometimes think that regulation had never achieved anything, and that the nanny state will be denounced. In the past, however, regulation has raised the living standards and quality of life of countless people, and we should not be afraid to regulate—most importantly, on behalf of those who cannot do anything through market forces about the evil circumstances in which they are forced to live.
  I apologise again for being late for the opening of my right hon. Friend the Minister's speech. I welcome what is happening, however, which will be a real feather in the cap of the Labour Government. I also hope that the additional points made by other hon. Members, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett), will be taken on board.
  6.12 pm
  Mr. Simon Thomas(PC): I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate, and to say at the outset that unlike the other two Opposition parties who will vote on this Bill tonight, I and my colleagues will support a Second Reading. We share some of the concerns that have been mentioned on the Labour Benches, however, about what is not included in the Bill, and about how the Bill could be strengthened.
  It would be churlish of me not to support the Bill, because in two regards—with regard to licensing of houses in multiple occupation and the right to buy—it is very similar to the private Member's Bill on housing in Wales that I introduced in the 2001–02 Session, which I am sure the Minister took time to read before introducing his Bill. The one thing that I am sure my Bill and the Minister's Bill shared, however, was an in-depth consultation with housing professionals in Wales. I was very grateful to the Chartered Institute of Housing and the Council of Mortgage Lenders for their help with my Bill. What I tried to achieve in my Bill reflected what the housing professionals and housing interests thought would be good for the housing market and for the provision of social and affordable housing in Wales. That is why some aspects of the Bill reflect similar aims and ambitions, which I welcome very much.
  Briefly, I want to put the Bill in the context of my constituents' concerns, as they will ask me what the Bill will do to make it easier for them to find more affordable homes or to find social housing. The situation with regard to social housing and affordable homes in rural areas is particularly difficult at the moment. For example, the latest figures that I can find for average weekly earnings in Ceredigion would add up to an annual income of £19,000 a year as at April last year. If the Cheltenham and Gloucester affordability index is used, however, an annual income of £22,000 would have been needed for a terrace house in Ceredigion, so a gap already existed one year ago. I suggest that the average income in Ceredigion may have gone up by 3 or 4 per cent. in the intervening time. House costs, however, have gone up by 40 per cent.

  577
  That is the crisis now being faced in rural areas. Right-to-buy homes have gone, apart from those protected by legislation in some rural villages. In many areas, particularly in coastal districts, no social housing at all is available for local people, and the cost of homes has gone way out of the range of people's ability to buy. In addition, the private sector in Ceredigion is appalling—it is among the worst in Wales. For example, it has the highest percentage of overcrowded households, and 24 per cent. of private rented homes in Ceredigion are unfit dwellings. That is a large-scale problem in the context of Wales, which is why I want to reflect on the Bill and on what tools it will allow us to use to deal with that.
  First, in most regards, the Bill devolves many powers to the National Assembly, which is to be welcomed. In particular, if we look at the purposes of the licensing system for HMOs, we realise that many Labour Members who have expressed doubts about definitions in relation to two storeys or three storeys, or four persons or five persons, may be interested to know that, as I read the Bill, devolution means that the National Assembly will define an HMO in Wales and how the licensing process will apply in Wales. In that regard, I have much sympathy with what the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) said. In the English context, local authorities should perhaps have a little more power to decide on these matters. In Wales, however, we certainly need such powers, as these are real problems.
  The Minister said that the Bill is selective about the licensing of HMOs because he wants to address priority areas. If we look at those priority areas, we see that 52 per cent. of fire deaths in HMOs occur in buildings that are three or more storeys high, and that a tenant living in a bedsit house of three or more storeys is 17 times more likely to be killed in a fire than an adult living in a similar single occupancy house. The link is therefore with storeys and the escape facilities in those homes, not with the numbers of people. That aspect needs to be examined in detail in Committee, and I hope that the National Assembly will use the powers in the Bill to develop a scheme that reflects more closely the needs of Wales.
  In that regard, there may be good news, as the Assembly has indicated that it believes that between 32,000 and 40,000 properties will be subject to licensing provisions in Wales. Given that it is estimated that there are 72,000 properties in the private rented sector as a whole, Members can see that the Assembly intends to license a greater proportion of the private rented sector in Wales than the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister believes will be licensed in England. That difference may be of interest to English Members when they look at the details.
  I must admit that I am fairly neutral about home information packs, but there are obvious advantages with a system that puts up-front costs on the purchaser in relation to speculative searches on a home in which he or she is interested. I agree very much with some of the comments about having a long run-in period and encouraging voluntary schemes in the meantime. The letters that I have received from estate agents in Bristol, for example, where the scheme was trialled, have been positive. The evidence given to the Select Committee was also positive in that regard. There is a lot of
  578
  confusion, fear and distrust in relation to a new system, but I see the potential of a much-simplified system. In that regard, I disagree with the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats. The law in Scotland is very different, and there was no Scottish Member in the Chamber to put him right on that. I assure him, however, that the situation there is very different from that in England and Wales. We can be rightly open-minded, and I have no problem with interfering in the market if it enables people to enter a market from which they would otherwise be excluded, which is the key socialist principle that we should consider in this sort of Bill.
  Another aspect that we need to examine in detail is the right to buy. My Bill would have changed the right to buy to the right to acquire throughout Wales—the provisions that applied to registered social landlords would also apply to council housing. This Bill does not do that. Can the Minister or the Under-Secretary address in the wind-up what element of devolution the National Assembly will have in the Bill? Will the Assembly have control over the right to buy in Wales, or will that be controlled by this Bill and previous housing measures? According to my interpretation, past housing measures control the legal aspect, and the Assembly's hands will, to an extent, be tied.
  Perhaps the Minister could be a little more generous to the Assembly. As I pointed out in an intervention on the speech of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, it has already used the social housing grant innovatively. Much of the grant is currently being used to support the private bought sector through the home-buy scheme, which encourages people to buy their homes in part-equity with the Assembly, a local authority or a registered social landlord. The scheme relates to privately built dwellings and to private persons who will sell them on. Any such dwelling will be eligible in Wales. We are talking about the open market rather than the social market here, and that use of a social housing grant to support aspects of the open market is as far as I would want to go; but the Bill gives the Assembly and local authorities powers to go further. It is a choice that they must make.
  I think that the introduction of a social housing ombudsman for Wales is a reasonable, indeed a vital step. I understand that the job will be done by a local commissioner. We are currently examining the whole issue of ombudsmen and commissioners in Wales, and the provision will help to clarify their roles.
  What is missing from the Bill? I agree with what has been said so far about the tenants deposit scheme. Shelter Cymru has estimated that tenants have been robbed of as much as £40 million by landlords through deposits in unregulated accounts. There are some innovative voluntary schemes, including the Ceredigion bond scheme, which is working very well. Landlords and tenants form a voluntary partnership. Nevertheless, nothing in my experience of that scheme suggests to me that a compulsory or statutory scheme would not work: indeed, all I have seen in my constituency suggests to me that we need such a scheme.
  Finally, I think we should strengthen the Assembly's ability to control second homes in Wales. That may not be a priority in the Bill, but it should be borne in mind

  579
  that in parts of Wales 30 or 40 per cent. of homes are second homes. The Assembly should be able to take more specific action to deal with planning aspects.
  On the whole the Bill is at least a step in the right direction, and I shall therefore support it.
  6.22 pm
  Ms Sally Keeble: I welcome the Bill, which deals with historical problems in the operation of the housing market in different parts of the country. It deals with problems in areas of low demand, especially in the north, by introducing selective licensing; it deals with problems in areas of high demand, mostly in the south, by reforming the right to buy. The introduction of the seller's pack will be particularly important in areas such as mine, where a lot of new housing is to be built.
  The Government are also right—and it is in this regard that the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) was so wrong—to try to influence the housing market by dealing with such matters as regulation, selective licensing and the right to buy. They have taken account of factors that affect the way in which an area is perceived, and the value of properties in that area.
  What does not feature in the Bill is the problem of overcrowding, which—as my right hon. Friend the Minister knows—I have raised before. I agree with my right hon. Friend that it is not possible to write the necessary standards into the Bill at this stage—that would make it unworkable—but I believe that it must be right that we work towards a standard that is more appropriate to the modern day and age. I believe that we must introduce a power in the Bill to upgrade the standards to something that is better than those introduced in 1935, which even then were widely recognised as being inadequate.
  The problem is also that the 1935 standards are in existing primary legislation, so it requires primary legislation to change them. While it is not possible to do that in this Bill, I do not think that those standards should be left to serve as a safety net beneath the new housing health and safety rating system. I fear that in the absence of any other standards, and any experience of implementing a new system—which, in other contexts, might work quite well—people will fall back on statutory standards that are entirely inadequate. On occasion local authorities have introduced their own schemes and improved the position, but have then had to fall back on statutory standards. That is part of the reason for our present problem.
  There was a time, when I was first in local government, when a young couple could obtain a one-bedroom flat when they were setting up home or having their first baby. When the second or even the third child came along, they would still be in the one-bedroom flat with no prospect of moving; and they would see the two or three-bedroom house that they had always wanted go to a family exactly the same size as theirs, or perhaps smaller, who had been on the homeless list. That produced a sense of unfairness, and tensions between people who wanted transfers and people who were homeless. It also meant that social housing capped some people's aspirations: they came to see it as dead-end housing.
  580
  I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), for instance, has had very different experiences. For her and for others, the problem of overcrowding relates to large families. In my constituency, however, it is usually young couples with one or two children—sometimes more—who are trapped in one-bedroom flats with no prospect of being able to improve their circumstances. That is especially true now, when prices are high and prevent them from moving from council flats to their own homes, which used to be possible in Northampton.
  My constituency is suburban. When I was going around it recently, I was called in to see a young couple who had a child of their own, and also had one partner's eldest daughter living with them. She was a teenager with behavioural difficulties. The family lived in a one-bedroom flat, which was intolerable for all of them. The wife was near collapse, and there was totally inadequate space for a difficult teenager and a young toddler who was starting to explore. The present standards do not provide for people like that. It is appalling that there is no possibility of moving for that family.
  The statutory standards are not, in fact, a safety net, because they are too low. It is wrong to expect people to sleep in kitchens. Families should have sitting rooms. Husbands and wives should not be expected to sleep in separate rooms to meet the gender segregation standards.
  In one respect, the Bill makes the present situation slightly worse. Clause 115(2)(a) states that for the purposes of subsection (1)(b), which relates to gender segregation,
  "children under the age of 12 are to be disregarded".
  That seems a bit odd. Does it mean what I think it means—that those young people will be discounted in HMOs, which often contain vulnerable people in unstable units? That could have a considerable impact on safety standards, and on the number of teenage pregnancies. It is inconsistent because in the statutory standards the age for gender segregation is 10, not 12. At the very least, those should be aligned.
  There is the expectation that, by increasing housing stock, the problem of overcrowding will be resolved. I do not think that it will. I think that there will always be an issue about the allocation of housing stock. We have to legislate to protect future generations. I would hate to think that in 70 years' time people will still be sitting around waiting for those standards to be improved. Given that this is a historic Bill and that it will set standards in housing, including public housing, for many years, it is important that, even if it cannot set a proper overcrowding standard, it at least starts the process by which that historic wrong can be put right; otherwise, it is very strong and important legislation.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: This Bill is very interesting. The Minister has not referred to national parks, but I want to make a special plea to the right hon. Gentleman because Exmoor national park is in my constituency and we have a problem there with housing of any type.
  The Government are well aware that national parks are areas of outstanding national beauty, but we have to be able to create homes for people who want to stay in

  581
  the area in which they were born, and encourage people to come in to do jobs that need to be done, mainly in Exmoor, in tourism and to do with the contentious issue of hunting. The national parks, including Exmoor national park, have done extremely well over many years in creating houses, but, for several reasons, have found it harder and harder to get landlords, tenants or people to buy. The problem is compounded by the fact that West Somerset district council, which is the smallest district council in the United Kingdom, has a total budget of just over £4 million to do everything it has to do and the housing stock, for historical reasons, has never been large. We have an added complication. Most of the area is one of outstanding natural beauty, and what is not, happens to be flood plain, so the Minister can understand that it has been very difficult to build amount of housing that we require.
  Over the past few years, the problem of second homes has grown and grown, but I accept that it has now been partly resolved. Many farms that used to be run by family owner-occupiers over many generations do not exist any more simply because people have sold them, dare I say it, to people who tend to live in the metropolis of London or some of the other conurbations. Those people have moved down and turned the houses into holiday cottages, not for rent to local people but for rent to people who want to enjoy the delights of Exmoor—something that I cannot complain about as it brings in income that we require.
  That process has meant, however, that it has become more and more difficult for us to buy land at a price at which we can build affordable houses on it. It is a Catch-22 situation. We cannot get the asset that we require to build housing for rent at a sensible rate to the people who need it most—local people who want to stay in Exmoor.
  The head teacher of my local college told me that the top 15 per cent. of its students—the ones the college wants to keep in the area—do not stay, their main reason being that they cannot find houses to buy at the bottom rung of the ladder because of the price. I urge the Minister to look at this matter. Areas of outstanding natural beauty, national parks, parts of Scotland and probably parts of Wales could be given some dispensation to build houses that would stay in public ownership no matter what and were used for the long-term social benefit of people who were trying to climb the housing ladder but had no collateral to do so.
  Interestingly enough, the Government were very successful—I do not know which Government it was; I suspect it was the 1945 Government or just after—in doing that through farms. They had a very good sale and leaseback scheme.
  Mr. Dawson: A Labour Government.
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger: It may well have been, but that scheme was successful. I urge the Minister to look at that again, because we cannot encourage people to stay in areas where they cannot afford to live. That problem is getting worse.
  I make another plea. The other end of my constituency has an industrial town—unusual for a Tory, one might say—but three sides of it are
  surrounded by flood plains. At the moment we are
  582
  unable to build social housing because of the pressure on the land that we are allowed to build on. In the old days, as the Minister is aware, it was easy to build on flood-plains, because people did not really get any permission and were able to do as they required. Rightly, the Government have introduced through the Environment Agency strict and rigorously controlled rules on building on flood plains but that has meant that we have lost a lot of land that was earmarked for building. I now have land in my constituency, as I am sure other hon. Members have, that cannot be built on because one cannot get insurance for the houses. That has created pressure on social housing.
  Recently, we have had a new bypass put in, which has led to the creation of 900 extra homes. If the Minister asks how many of those are social, the answer is none. The cost of the land has risen to an extent that it is very difficult for us to buy the land and the council has none. Private landlords in my area of Somerset are determined to build private houses to be able to make, dare I say it, a profit. I should not complain about that as a Tory.
  Mr. Love: In most other parts of the country, the local or regional planning authority would assume that, with a development of over 15 dwellings, a certain proportion—25 per cent. in some areas, 50 per cent. in high-cost areas such as London—would be social housing. What is happening in the hon. Gentleman's local authority area?
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman brought that up. It was remiss of me not to do so. That is an area where there was a failing—there is no doubt about it—but the district council had a problem. It was trying to encourage people to come in. We are not a natural industrial town—we are in the middle of the countryside. Indeed, ours is the furthest west industrial town in Britain. We have had to create many more expensive houses to bring in the people we need to work in the cellophane industry, a growth industry, but the hon. Gentleman's point was well made. It has been addressed but it is a chicken and egg situation. If we create the social housing, we do not have the infrastructure in either of our district councils to be able to look after people efficiently. That is a failing not only of this Government but of successive Governments over many years. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have brought that up.
  In the longer term, we are going to find it more and more difficult to build houses that will be socially acceptable. I have been into many houses that are in multiple occupancy. That matter was also brought up by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), a former junior Minister. Many of those dwellings are not up to standard. When I told my district council that there was a debate on such accommodation today, it talked about the cost of bringing those homes up to standard. We have two housing associations to look after the stock and they do so well in most cases but the cost is enormous. That goes back many years and we are finding it harder and harder to keep up with the repair rate because of social changes, changes in legislation, certain changes from Europe and other things.
  My final plea to the Minister is on park homes. I have a lot in my constituency. My predecessor, Lord King, over his entire tenure as the Member for Bridgwater,

  583
  from 1970 to the last election, had park home problems. I continue to have them. This Bill without any shadow of a doubt will help, but I wonder whether it will resolve the problem of unscrupulous, difficult landlords. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) eloquently put it, tenants, elderly in most cases, are finding it harder and harder to take people on. I am sure that many hon. Members have had numerous approaches by constituents who find it harder and harder to take up these issues.
  My plea to the Minister is that we ensure that the Bill is as tight as possible on behalf of those people. I have had enormous problems with drainage, access, people who have been threatened, and people who have found it very difficult to live in those homes. If an elderly person's home is such a park home, they bought it in the hope that they could retire there, but they are finding it tougher and tougher to live there because of landlords who, shall we say, are draconian in pushing their rules. It is difficult to know where they will end up. I do not want to see anyone homeless; no one does. Unfortunately, we are creating that at the moment—people get scared and feel that they cannot stay in that park home estate.
  Since I have been the Member for Bridgwater, I have on various occasions come across people who have been compelled to sell because they do not believe that they can guarantee their safety as they get older because of things that are not being done by landlords, or things that are being done to the detriment of that park. In Committee, the Minister should look to close any possible loopholes to help some of the most vulnerable people in society.
  Mr. Dawson: I entirely support the hon. Gentleman in his concerns about park homes, on which the Bill, as it stands, does not propose any legislation. Will he support the amendments, which will be supported by both sides of the House, to bring about the changes that the Government have said they want? Does he accept that the proposals are supported not just by Members on both sides of the house, but by the industry and all the national residents' organisations?
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his excellent intervention, with which I totally agree. Any MP with a park home in their constituency will have had such a problem, as this has been going on for generations. It cannot be right to have such a situation in this day and age and I urge the Minister to resolve it as quickly as possible. If we do not, we will let down ourselves and an enormous number of people who cannot protect themselves and need this place to ensure that their lives are happy and fruitful, as they should be.
  6.41 pm
  David Wright: I ought to declare an interest as a member of the Chartered Institute of Housing. I pay it money, not the other way round. More fool me, perhaps.
  I should like to focus on four key areas: the selective licensing of private landlords in areas of low demand; the proposed licensing scheme for houses in multiple
  584
  occupation; reforms to right to buy to prevent abuse and exploitation of the scheme; and home buyer's packs, which seem to have generated a great deal of debate this afternoon. Like other hon. Members, I shall mention some matters that I would like to see in the Bill.
  The private rented sector comprises 2.2 million households in England, but at just 10 per cent of the country's housing stock, it is the smallest in the western world. The recent Barker review of housing supply recognised that, at a time when we have a major problem with the availability of affordable housing, the sector could make a much greater contribution. We need to increase the availability of accommodation for key workers and those on low incomes. The sector could play a key role.
  The private rented sector's reputation for poor standards is well known—49 per cent. of private tenants live in conditions that do not meet the decent homes standard, as defined by the English house condition survey in 2001—and the lack of security for tenants is a serious obstacle, preventing it from delivering on its potential. Historically, our strategies to tackle private sector disrepair and poor landlords have been weak. We need a strategy that provides fiscal incentives for people to enter the private rented sector as landlords and tools to ensure that they act properly. The Bill starts to go down that road.
  In his pre-Budget report, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor indicated that he was considering measures to encourage a stronger and better-quality private rented sector, and the introduction of real estate investment trusts has been identified as a key tool in doing that. I hope that my right hon. Friend's forthcoming Budget statement will provide further details and a time scale for these reforms, which are overdue. Alongside those changes is the need to ensure that tenants have a clear understanding of their rights. MPs often have people coming to our surgeries who have been badly treated by poor-quality private landlords. Better-quality written tenancy agreements are essential; these are backed by the Law Commission.
  Part 3 of the Bill focuses on the selective licensing of private landlords. I welcome the concept of discretionary powers, allowing local authorities to license. Perhaps we need to expand that beyond areas of low demand, and I know that the Bill proposes some powers in that area. However, it is not just in areas of low demand where there are poor private landlords; indeed, some of the worst are in areas of high demand. Those landlords can put into the market a product that is below standard, but people have to accept it because they have no other choice. We need a widespread licensing scheme that will help in areas of low and high demand.
  We also need to make sure that people who are managing private rented sector properties are fit and proper persons. We need to keep records of those guilty of harassing or unlawfully evicting tenants and make sure that they are excluded from the sector and cannot hold a licence any more.
  I represent a new town. People might think that we do not have problems in the private rented sector or with poor landlords, but we do. In the 1980s, the former Conservative Government encouraged Telford

  585
  development corporation to pursue what we called locally a fire sales policy with regard to its social housing stock. Much of the stock found its way into the hands of fairly unscrupulous private sector landlords, many of whom were absentee landlords holding two or three properties on large former TDC estates. We have major problems in those areas because the sector has not been regulated for a long time. It is difficult to trace those landlords and properties are often left empty and abandoned. We need to make sure that we regulate effectively in those circumstances.
  I am proud to say that Telford and Wrekin council has brought in a landlord accreditation scheme on Woodside estate in south Telford. The very best landlords—there are some very good ones in the town—have signed up to the scheme. Such schemes can be a real boost to private sector landlords; they are almost a badge of honour. They enable the landlord to market private rented accommodation more effectively in the locality and people find renting from such landlords more appealing.
  Landlords want some flexibility, but accredited and regulated landlords can market themselves as just that and can reap the rewards of being seen to be responsible. That should be combined with stronger powers to encourage local authorities to develop a strategic approach to improving the sector, and with fiscal measures to increase supply by putting professional landlords on the same tax footing as other small businesses. That approach was a key recommendation of the Shelter and Joseph Rowntree Foundation's commission on standards and supply in the private rented sector. The approach is supported by a wide range of organisations and interest groups, including landlords. The Select Committee backed a similar carrot and stick approach, recommending that landlords who demonstrate competence in housing management should be allowed to offset some additional management costs against their tax liability. That would be a good way of promoting flexibility and would encourage more people into the sector.
  I have covered the private rented sector in some detail and my remaining remarks will be brief. Some 1.5 million people live in houses in multiple occupation, many of them vulnerable people, often living independently for the first time. The conditions in which they live are often unhealthy and sometimes dangerous. The English house condition survey found that 10 per cent. of HMOs were unfit for human habitation. There are no universally applied standards for fire safety, and because most occupants have little security of tenure, they stand every chance of losing their home if they ask their landlord to undertake repairs or improve safety.
  I welcome the Government's attempt to try to regulate the HMO sector more effectively, but we need to look at the issue of university accommodation, which should be included in regulations. Also, registered social landlords need to examine their role in relation to HMOs, and it would be helpful if the Minister considered that in detail in Committee. The mandatory licensing regime should also cover all HMOs of three or more storeys, or four or more occupants. The sector needs to be better regulated.
  Some 1.5 million sitting tenants have exercised the right to buy, which has been a superb scheme. The problem is that we have not acted to replace the houses
  586
  with enough affordable housing. The House should remember that, during the Conservative years, the capital receipts from the right to buy had to be used to offset debt and were not reinvested effectively in the social housing stock. Since the Chairman of the Select Committee is here, may I say that I agree with the Select Committee's view that we should standardise the right to buy with the right to acquire and make it a seamless system for acquisition across the social housing sector? There is probably some agreement between the Benches on that. Levels of discount would be an issue. Tenants who have the right to acquire get less support than those who have the right to buy as former council and secure tenants, but we should work together to try to come up with a better system of standardising and regulating the right to buy.
  Home buyer's information packs are an excellent idea, certainly for first-time buyers, and help to reduce the enormous costs that people face when trying to acquire their first property.
  In closing, I should like to speak about what I would have liked the Bill to contain. It is no surprise that hon. Members on both sides of the House have already mentioned several of those issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) has done some excellent work on park homes. My constituency includes some park homes and I want the legislation to deal with that sector.
  There is clearly cross-party support for a tenants' deposit scheme, which could usefully be included in the Bill. An updated definition of statutory overcrowding would also be welcome, as would powers compulsorily to lease long-term empty homes.
  The Bill will give us much to do. I greatly welcome the fact that a substantial piece of housing legislation is before the House. It will allow us to cover a lot of ground and deal with many problems. It will allow the Government to deliver some of their commitments for the housing sector. There is still time to ensure that it includes additional provisions, but I welcome the Bill and thank the Minister for the work that he has done on it.
  6.51 pm
  Andrew Selous: It is a pleasure to speak in the debate on the Housing Bill. Housing is the issue most frequently drawn to my attention by my constituents in my weekly surgeries. My local district council has a housing waiting list of about 2,000 people, so my constituency certainly has a severe shortage of social and affordable housing, which I am keen to see remedied. My own district council has plans afoot to build between 6.000 and 8,000 houses up to 2016 in order to meet local housing needs. I fully support that Conservative-run council, which is quite right to have such plans in place.
  I must respond to the Minister's opening remarks about the sustainable communities plan, because my South-West Bedfordshire constituency is right in the middle of one of the communities plan areas. In their kindness and wisdom, the Government have seen fit to provide some houses for my constituents. However, it is not the 6,000 to 8,000 that we are looking for; nor even 12,000 or 16,000. No, they are planning to build 43,000 houses in the middle of my constituency. That is the

  587
  equivalent of a new Dunstable or Leighton Buzzard, in an area that is already extremely congested. Many of the roads in Leighton Buzzard, Houghton Regis and Dunstable are already difficult to get through. The motorways and commuter roads to London and elsewhere are already extremely congested and the trains are often packed to overflowing, with commuters regularly having to stand as they make their daily journeys.
  There is no way local employment can be provided for the 80,000-plus people who will come to live in my constituency if the Government have their way and build so many houses. My constituents' reaction is to say that the scale and nature of the proposals are wholly unacceptable. I intend vigorously to oppose the plan under the banner of "local homes for local people". The Minister said that it was a question of building houses where they were most needed. I agree, but they are not needed on that scale in my constituency. That is how my constituents feel. I also put it to the Minister that the people he intends to occupy the houses will not feel that they are in the right place either if they have to commute 40 miles to London on congested roads or overflowing trains. On the Minister's own criteria, the plan will fail through its scale and nature.
  Mr. Love: One of the findings of the Barker review was that the previous regional planning guidance on the number of houses needed was much less than really required. As we all know that housing supply issues lead to house price inflation and homelessness, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the figures are the minimum required in each of the regions?
  Andrew Selous: My argument is simple—that each local authority area should meet the housing demand in it. That is not complicated and is a reasonable argument. My district council is planning to meet the housing need in south Bedfordshire. What we need is for local authorities to adopt a similarly responsible attitude across the south-east and the whole country to meet needs where they really are, rather than force people to commute vast distances.
  Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman and I are next-door neighbours and I understand the argument that he is making. But does he accept that it is not just Dunstable and South-West Bedfordshire, but the Luton conurbation that needs many more houses? There are 5,000 on the waiting list; 3,000 on the transfer list; and 500 in temporary accommodation in Luton alone. We need more houses in the Luton area, not just in south-west Bedfordshire. I understand the hon. Gentleman's feelings, but he should take that matter into account.
  Andrew Selous: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but if he saw the scale of the figures that the Government are proposing, namely, 43,000 houses or enough for some 80,000 people, he would agree that south Bedfordshire is taking overspill housing from London and the whole of the south-east—an area far greater than south Bedfordshire or, indeed, his constituency, which borders mine.
  588
  I welcome many measures in the Bill, particularly those to deal with antisocial behaviour. The proposal to extend introductory tenancies is also welcome, but I would like the Bill to include measures that made housing associations in particular far more responsible for the antisocial behaviour of their tenants. I have become increasingly exasperated in recent months at the incredibly slow pace at which housing associations proceed when confronted with the severe antisocial behaviour of their tenants. It is unacceptably slow and I ask the Minister exactly to whom housing associations are accountable in that regard. In my experience, they often act as if they are a law unto themselves, and they see their first duty as to their tenants with very little regard indeed for the effect on the neighbouring community of the actions of an admittedly small minority of their tenants who indulge in severe antisocial behaviour.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Has my hon. Friend noticed the anomaly in the Bill in respect of the treatment of private landlords and those in the public sector? The private landlord will be branded as a rogue landlord if he does not do something about antisocial behaviour, but that does not apply to the housing association sector. Equally, the registration of houses in multiple occupation applies to the private but not the public sector. Is that not a huge anomaly?
  Andrew Selous: My hon. Friend makes a fair and valid point. My constituents are not remotely concerned about the tenure of the person who is making their lives a misery; they just want something done about the problem. We were all struck earlier by the description by the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) of a case in her own constituency. The Government should realise that there is a great need for more independent witnesses in such cases of horrendous antisocial behaviour. Local people and neighbours living around the houses concerned are often simply too scared to give the necessary evidence to the police.
  Other welcome measures in the Bill include the proposal to extend disabled facilities grants to people living in caravans, which is excellent. I am sure that many hon. Members will have seen the life-changing developments that can be brought about by those grants helping families care for their members.
  Further questions need to be asked about home information packs. During the debate so far, we have had no answers to questions raised about indemnity in respect of insurance matters. That is a very real and serious question, and as a former insurance professional, I can see significant problems arising, unless we get clear answers in respect of this part of the Bill.
  I agree with the many Members who said that there are some extremely important issues that this Bill should deal with, but does not; that is to be regretted. The issue of empty homes is particularly close to my own heart. There are some 750,000 empty homes throughout the country, and well in excess of 100,000 empty homes in London and the south-east, where the pressure is certainly the greatest. One type of empty home that is dear to my heart, and about which I would love to see something done, is the flats that one sees above shops in

  589
  every high street and shopping area throughout the country. I would urge a carrot-and-stick approach to such properties. With a little effort, many of them could be made into excellent homes for young people moving to a given area, such as young couples starting out, and families with a first child. Such properties are a hugely wasted asset of this nation. Their use in this way would add greatly to the security of our shopping centres, and bring life back to many of our town centres. It is a pity that the Bill does not consider this issue.
  Like many Members, I very much regret that the Bill includes nothing on park homes, which seems to have been a theme running through today's debate. There are many park homes in my constituency, and I must admit that I was shocked to discover from the owner on an early visit to a park home that the residents had no more rights than if they lived in a caravan. In effect, such properties are settled homes, as if they were brick-built structures that had existed for hundreds of years, yet housing law regards them as having no more legal rights than a caravan. That simply does not reflect the reality. Such people are in a similar position to that occupied by leaseholders for many years, and the Government have tried to act on their behalf.
  David Wright: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Does he agree that, as some other Conservative Members have said, one major problem is that many who live in such homes are elderly people, and that they are put under great pressure by those who often behave extremely unscrupulously?
  Andrew Selous: What the hon. Gentleman says is true, and there is another fact about park homes that shocked me. Often, local authorities back up park home owners to ensure that the tenants are living up to the standards expected of them. However, it is not clear that local authorities always ensure that there is fair play so far as the tenants themselves are concerned.
  I regret the fact that the Bill does not include a tenancy deposit scheme, and in terms of antisocial behaviour there is one other category of person that it should have taken into account: those who are unable to sell, or to move out of, their homes because there is now a duty to reveal the behaviour of one's neighbours when one sells a property. When one finds that the local housing authority has allocated tenants to the neighbouring properties whose behaviour is such that the area becomes a nightmare to live in, yet one is unable to move from one's property, a huge problem is created so far as housing mobility is concerned. It is very unfair on such people, and in placing antisocial tenants in a given area, local housing authorities should have regard to the effect on those who own their own properties.
  7.4 pm
  Ms Oona King: I want to begin by reiterating just how important this legislation is. Among other things, it seeks to improve some of Britain's worst housing. As we know, in 1997 we inherited a £19 billion repairs backlog and the Government doubled the money for social housing; indeed, in my constituency it was trebled. But because the situation was so dire, that was not enough, which is why the Deputy Prime Minister announced the £22 billion sustainable communities plan, which marks the
  590
  Government's determination to end the scandal of poor housing and to address the desperate need for new housing. By April this year, we will have reduced the number of non-decent social sector homes by about 1 million. Our target is to make all social housing decent by 2010. That is an exceptionally ambitious target, but housing is an exceptionally important problem. Every week, many of my constituents contact me to explain how their housing is literally ruining their lives.
  So what will the Bill do? It complements the actions taken under the sustainable communities plan, the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 and the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, and it also supports the extra investment and new incentives to improve the private rented sector, which has been forgotten for too long. On antisocial behaviour measures, I should be grateful if the Minister would place on the record the Government's thinking on, and decision on, housing benefit sanctions. As we have heard, the private rented sector includes some of the most vulnerable people in the country, who live in houses in multiple occupation. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate my former colleagues on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning and Local Government Committee, particularly the Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett). Their work on HMOs and other issues is a remarkable example of successful pre-legislative scrutiny.
  In the time available, I want to deal with four areas: HMOs, the right to buy, the tenancy deposit scheme and overcrowding. The east end is the historical home of the common lodging house, which was the forerunner of HMOs. These days, Tower Hamlets does not have many such houses, but the few that we do have have rarely, if ever, been identified and registered under the council's voluntary scheme. The only way to guarantee their registration, and to guarantee that they meet fire and health and safety regulations, is to require the landlord to license the property. Having said that, I understand why those HMOs that pose the highest risk must be the first priority. That is why the Government should extend the proposed mandatory licensing regime to all HMOs with three or more storeys, irrespective of the number of occupants.
  The Government are committed to the principle of right to buy, and I agree with those who said that it is a very good scheme in principle. The problem in Tower Hamlets, at least, was that in practice it had a disastrous impact on the availability of affordable housing, and on the nature of the private sector housing then springing up. So I am very grateful for the fact that the Government are acting to end abuse, and to increase the supply of affordable housing in high-demand areas. I want to thank the Deputy Prime Minister for listening very carefully on the numerous occasions on which I raised with him the issue of the abuse of right to buy in Tower Hamlets, and the resulting reduction in affordable housing. This legislation recognises the need to update right-to-buy provisions.
  For those who are exercising their right to buy as a way to move out to the suburbs, there are other schemes that would help them to do so, but which would still maintain their property in the council housing sector, so that someone else in housing need could access it. We must prevent private companies from exploiting the scheme and from asset stripping our public housing in

  591
  areas where it is desperately needed by many thousands of homeless people and families in overcrowded accommodation. I thank the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Ministers and officials who have worked hard to develop the measures in the Bill that will help to end the abuse of right to buy.
  I want to raise the issue of the tenancy deposit scheme on behalf of the many constituents who have contacted me about it. Back in 1996, during the passage of the previous housing legislation, the Tories told tenants that statutory protection of their rent deposits was unnecessary. They were reassured that the problem of unreasonably withheld deposits would be addressed by Lord Woolf's report on increasing access to justice through the small claims court. It was not, which is why the pilot voluntary tenancy deposit scheme was set up. That was why, when it became all too clear that landlords were refusing to sign up, Lord Falconer said in the House of Lords that legislation might be necessary. It is now necessary, and I hope that I detected the possibility in the Minister's opening remarks that a Bill might be introduced in the House of Lords.
  The only part of the pilot scheme that really needs changing is the replacement of the invitation for landlords to join by a requirement that they do so. What, then, are the objections, as that change surely cannot be too testing? The original objection of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister that the costs of a statutory tenancy deposit scheme would outweigh its benefits is surely no longer a problem. We have seen evidence that the costs of independent adjudication would be only a fraction of the £19 million suggested back in June. The only other argument against including the scheme in the Bill seems to be that we would be better off leaving it to another Bill, but it is highly unlikely that there will be another housing Bill in the next Queen's Speech, and even if there were, it might not be agreed before 2005. This Bill provides us with the perfect opportunity to introduce an enabling power to allow the Secretary of State to set up a statutory scheme, and I urge Ministers to take it.
  Predictably, I come to overcrowding. One of the Select Committee's recommendations was that the Bill should be used to update the Dickensian statutory definition of household overcrowding. I must say that "Dickensian" is exactly the right description of a standard that was actually introduced not in 1935 but in the Housing of the Working Classes Act 1890. I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning for agreeing to my request for further research into the impact and extent of overcrowding. He is well aware of the problem and sympathetic to it. It is unacceptable that people should be expected—officially, so to speak—to sleep in living rooms and even kitchens, not just for a night or a week but for years on end.
  The current standard does not even acknowledge the presence of babies until their first birthday, despite the blindingly obvious need for cot space and space to change and wash them. That is further evidence that the standard, like much else in housing legislation, was devised decades, if not centuries, ago by men who would not recognise a nappy if it slapped them in the face. Mothers could not expect much more of legislators in
  592
  1890 but we can surely do a bit better in 2004, not least because the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), is fully aware of what a nappy looks like and has to deal with them regularly.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) mentioned to me that clause 115 appears to reduce the room standard. Section 325 of the Housing Act 1985 disregards children aged under 10 who have to share rooms with siblings of a different sex, but clause 115(2)(a) disregards children under 12. I would be disappointed if we were reducing rather than strengthening the standard, but that may not be so and I would be grateful for clarification.
  I hope that Ministers will agree to include a new clause enabling the overcrowding standard to be set by secondary legislation at a later date. The Bill is a good one, but like most things in life it could be even better. The Government have demonstrated their willingness to make changes to it. The relatively minor amendments that I have highlighted would ensure that we deliver our extremely ambitious goal of a decent home for all. I implore Ministers to look seriously at those modest, yet crucial, changes.
  7.14 pm
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: We have had a very interesting debate and, with the exception of the two Opposition Front-Bench representatives, the majority of Members have spoken of what they favour in the Bill, where they would like to strengthen it and what they would like to add. I hope that the Minister will listen to what has been said on both sides. Several common messages have been strongly delivered.
  I want to speak in particular about the Bill's provisions on houses in multiple occupation. The 1997 Labour manifesto on which I stood contained a commitment to implement selective licensing of private landlords. I regret the delay in enacting that pledge. Much damage has been done in the time that the Government have taken to formulate their proposals. However, in return we have a good Bill before us. It is not all that some have hoped for, but it is a vital step and perhaps as much as could be expected.
  Before turning to the Bill's substance, I shall take a few moments to describe why the licensing of HMOs is so important in my constituency. Two wards in Cardiff, Central—Cathays and Plasnewydd—have experienced serious difficulties in the past decade because of a large increase in student numbers at the adjacent universities. With no serious expansion of student accommodation, there has been a resulting growth in private landlords providing short-term accommodation. Absentee landlords have replaced owner-occupiers as family households have moved out of the area.
  The market has been unregulated, and as the consumers have little memory—they change every year—market mechanisms do not work. Irresponsible behaviour among some landlords has contributed to a significant physical decline in the neighbourhood. That has been bad for the students who have had to cope with some deposits not being returned, and on that I echo what many Members have said, including my hon.

  593
  Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), about the need for a deposit scheme enforced by legislation. I helped to initiate a voluntary scheme in Cardiff, which still operates, but that is not enough. We must have legislation.
  As well as substandard and cramped housing suffered by students, things have been especially bad for permanent local residents who have seen their neighbourhoods transformed by landlords who do not take good care of the properties and students who are there only part of the year. Many now feel like strangers in their own locality, where they may have lived all their lives. National Union of Students research shows that 50 per cent. of students living in shared accommodation report repairs that need to be done to the house, but by the time they have discovered a problem and pressed for it to be dealt with, they are often coming to the end of their tenancy and the problem is therefore not dealt with.
  The process also has knock-on effects for local services: schools have fewer and fewer pupils and eventually close, general practitioners move their practices elsewhere and bus routes become less popular and are closed. The character of entire communities has been transformed. Mine is not an isolated example—comparable university towns and cities have experienced similar problems. Over the next few weeks, we will vote on rather controversial proposals on higher education funding. It would be an extraordinary failure of joined-up Government if we were to expand student numbers only to blight the areas around universities and condemn new students to substandard accommodation. I hope that the Bill will ensure that that is not the case.
  Two proposals in the Bill address some of the problems I have outlined. The first is the mandatory licensing of HMOs. At the moment, the notes to the Bill foresee the Government having a national scheme only for properties with five or more occupants and three or more storeys. I understand the Government's reasons for doing that. It would be odd to force licensing on areas with no problems or even a shortage of HMOs in even the smallest properties. I note, however, that that goes against the recommendations of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning and Local Government Committee, and it may be a subject to which the Government will wish to return in future.
  The scheme will apply to only a minority of HMOs in my constituency. NUS research has shown that 75 per cent. of students live in buildings with two storeys and 50 per cent. in groups of four or fewer. It is also not impossible to imagine bad landlords switching their holding to smaller properties to escape the measure, something which would bring no comfort to my constituents. This provision is therefore not enough to deal with the problems in Cardiff and many other cities.
  The second proposal in the Bill that deals with HMOs is the selective licensing for private landlords, which—as I mentioned earlier—has long been a manifesto commitment. Initially, the provision was designed to deal with the problems of antisocial behaviour in areas of low demand. However, the Bill now says:
  "The authority must consider that a significant proportion of the HMOs of that description in the area are being managed sufficiently ineffectively to give rise, or be likely to give rise, to one or more particular problem either for those occupying those HMOs or for members of the public."
  594
  Parts of my constituency seem to fit that description very well. However, I hope that the Minister will confirm when she winds up that areas of high demand in which problems arise will be considered sympathetically. I have some confidence that my constituency will be considered sympathetically, as I understand that the National Assembly for Wales will make the decision. I hope, for the sake of other hon. Members, that English areas will also receive sympathetic consideration.
  It is important that Ministers listen to local authorities on the issue. It would create enormous bad feeling if both residents and councils believed that a serious problem existed, but were prevented from taking effective action by the Government. It is important to note that in areas such as mine there would be very little danger of displacement—bad landlords moving short distances to avoid the selective licensing—because there are huge differences in demand for, and quality of, accommodation a very short distance from the university.
  If implemented properly, the Bill has the power to address several of the most fractious problems in parts of my constituency. Many people have waited a long time for the Bill. The last big expansion in student numbers occurred chaotically, often transforming neighbourhoods for the worse. With this Bill, let us hope that the next expansion, however it is funded, is managed more effectively and protects and enriches our communities rather than destroying them.
  7.22 pm
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: I apologise to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) for my absence during his contribution to the debate. I was attending a Select Committee meeting, but I have otherwise been present for the whole debate.
  I declare an interest as the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Traveller law reform, which is one of the more recent additions to the list. In active partnership with the Traveller Law Reform Coalition, the group has already had a major impact on articulating and addressing the concerns of the Gypsy and Traveller community.
  The all-party group and the Gypsy and Traveller community are indebted to the Government for the readiness with which Ministers were prepared to listen to our concerns. I welcome the intention of the Housing Bill to help the most vulnerable tenants in the private sector and strengthen the Government's drive to meet the 2010 "decent homes for all" target. In particular, I welcome attempts to crack down on landlords, tenants and companies profiteering from the council house sales system. One of the greatest priorities of any Government committed to social justice and equality is to ensure that everyone has the right to decent accommodation.
  I fear, however, that one ethnic group—the Gypsy and Traveller community—is being left ever further behind. Lest I appear to be too dissatisfied, I should make it clear that I welcome the fact that the disabled facilities grant will be extended to cover caravan dwellers. The Government accepted the argument and included the change in the Bill, and that covers a major area of concern for the Gypsy and Traveller community.

  595
  In 1994, the Caravan Sites Act 1968 was repealed by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. The Labour Opposition at the time opposed the Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), then shadow spokesman on home affairs, said that
  "the Government's proposals to repeal part of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 do not solve any problems but create more … What would be achieved by passing the Bill … To do so would criminalise some gipsies and increase homelessness; it would cause family breakdown and place added pressures on social and education services. It would certainly not solve any problems. Indeed, it is our view that it would create more problems and improve nothing."—[Official Report, 19 October 1994; Vol. 248, c. 358–9.]
  My hon. Friend's words were prophetic. Unfortunately for the Gypsy and Traveller community, time has shown those comments to hold a great truth. The present failed policy regime has had a negative impact on the health of the Traveller community and increased the number of unauthorised encampments, which has caused inconvenience for the settled community. Relations between the settled and the Traveller community have inevitably deteriorated as a result.
  It is time that the Government addressed the issue of Traveller accommodation. Such action would bring benefits to both Travellers and non-Travellers. It would contribute significantly to ending the spiral of hatred in which the Traveller community exists. We had an example of that in Lewes at the turn of the year, and a fracas took place in Coventry today over issues that will—I hope—be resolved satisfactorily. In any case, it is certain that the additional pressures placed on the Traveller community—including the increased demand for settlements and the use of unauthorised pitches—are causing trouble.
  My colleagues in the all-party group and I perceive action by the Government as presenting a win-win situation for Travellers and non-Travellers alike. An ever-growing body of opinion has called on the Government to address Traveller accommodation needs. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister commissioned research, and a report by Pat Niner, entitled "The Provision and Condition of Local Authority Gypsy/Traveller Sites in England" and published in 2003, noted the strength of opinion that exists. She stated:
  "There is no clear, widely understood national policy towards accommodation for Gypsies and other Travellers in England; there is a general feeling that such a policy is needed involving local authorities and others but with a strong lead from central government."
  The report notes that within the next five years between 1,000 and 2,000 additional residential pitches and some 2,000 to 2,500 transit pitches will be needed.
  I am pleased to report that the Committee that considered the draft Housing Bill, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett), recommended that the Government introduce a new statutory duty to provide or facilitate sites for Gypsies and Travellers. I regret that it is missing from the Bill.
  It is not only Travellers and their representatives who have called for action to address the accommodation needs of Travellers. A range of groups—including the
  596
  Commission for Racial Equality, Shelter, the Children's Society, the Local Government Association and the National Farmers Union—wants the Government to do more. The Institute for Public Policy Research has also written "Moving Forward", a report on Traveller accommodation that also addresses the issue and recognises its importance for social harmony and social justice.
  Rather than reciting a wish list, I shall highlight two steps that the Government should take now. The first, as I have mentioned, is to create a duty on local authorities to provide and facilitate Traveller sites. The second is to legislate to enable Housing Corporation funds to be used for the construction of Traveller sites. That would create a positive opportunity to overcome a major social problem.
  I shall conclude by reading a passage from a letter sent by the Commission for Racial Equality to the official in charge of the draft Housing Bill on 9 June 2003, expressing disappointment that the Bill made no reference to the accommodation of the Gypsy and Traveller community. It stated:
  "The Race Relations Act 1976, as amended by the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, gives public authorities, including the ODPM, a statutory duty to work to eliminate unlawful discrimination, promote equality of opportunity and good race relations in all they do.
  Gypsies and Irish Travellers are defined as racial groups under the Race Relations Act, and by excluding Gypsies and Travellers from a piece of legislation which aims to provide decent homes for all ethnic groups in the settled community, the ODPM risks failing to promote equality of opportunity or to adequately address potential racial discrimination. Further good race relations are unlikely to be promoted if improvements are seen to be offered to certain groups, excluding others."
  That letter presents a powerful argument that the Government cannot afford to ignore if they value our commitment to social inclusion and our pledge to create decent homes for all. The word "all" should, and must, include the Gypsy and Traveller community.
  Finally, I want to make specific reference to my constituency. Many of my hon. Friends have described the problems of university accommodation, such as the fact that terraced houses of less than three storeys are not included in the Bill's provisions. My hon. Friends referred to the infamous habits of private landlords who buy up cheap council housing and do not care what their tenants do, allowing drug addicts and others to operate from those houses. I welcome the fact that the Bill will deal with that problem—at least I hope that it will.
  There are real problems with HMOs: first, in respect of a few students who on some occasions, sadly, can be a social nuisance, although they are not the majority; and, secondly, on the maintenance of proper standards in those houses. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) pointed out, the provisions should be extended to cover any house in multiple occupation. The Government are drawing a false distinction. Many problems exist in old, terraced houses that were shoved up as an outcome of the industrial revolution, and they must be tackled.
  7.32 pm
  Hugh Bayley: Antisocial behaviour is a serious problem in York, as it is in many parts of the country. No one should have to put up with

  597
  six ball-bearings being shot through their front window, with people pushing an abandoned car over their garden, with a telephone box being blown up by high-power fireworks or with a primary-school-age child riding up and down the pavement and over other people's gardens on a quad bike, yet those problems are occurring in York. The Government have taken many steps to make it easier to deal with families who let their children and teenagers run out of control, but more support for local authorities and others is clearly needed.
  Like the City of York council, I welcome the proposal in the Bill to extend the period for introductory tenancies, to make it easier to evict tenants who do not stick by the local authority's rules. The council also supports the right to withhold consent to mutual exchanges where the person who wants the exchange perpetrates antisocial behaviour. If we were to allow such an exchange, months of work building up the case for eviction would be lost when the person moved to a new address. The council endorses the Government's proposal to allow local authorities to suspend their obligations under the right to buy when the person who wants to buy their home is responsible for antisocial behaviour.
  I especially support the proposal that the needs of the community will be taken into account when housing possession cases come before the court. Too often, the victims are ignored by the justice system but in this case the Government are putting the victim first.
  The City of York faces two particular problems: first, the shortage of social housing for rent; and, secondly, the lack of affordable private and social housing for both rent and affordable housing for sale. The Government sometimes characterise the country's housing problems as those of shortage and affordability in the south and abandonment in the north, yet in parts of the north affordability is as great a problem as it is in the south. I have raised that point with the Prime Minister, at questions in July 2002; with the Deputy Prime Minister in correspondence; and, on 12 May 2003, in the Committee dealing with the Housing (Right to Buy) (Limits on Discount) (Amendment) Order 2003, yet during that period the problem in York has grown worse. It is time that the Government sent a Minister to York to examine the problems and to talk with the local authority about how they can be overcome.
  In York, about 3,625 people are on the housing waiting list, excluding those wanting transfers. From 1999 to 2003, 717 houses in York were sold under the right-to-buy scheme but only 428 new homes were provided by registered social landlords. Overall, including flats, 810 properties were sold but only 630 new properties were provided. Roughly, only three of every four properties sold were replaced. Only 70 per cent. of those replacement properties were homes for rent—the rest were for discounted sale or shared ownership—so, compared with 810 properties sold over the past four years only about 440 new homes for rent have been built, which has exacerbated York's housing problem.
  Last year, 1,066 socially rented houses became available for new lets, yet the local authority accepted 1,300 new households as statutorily homeless. It is not surprising that the housing waiting list is rising and that few people on it have any prospect of being housed at
  598
  all. The City of York council's housing needs survey in August 2002 showed that about 2,000 new lets were needed each year but that only about 1,000 homes were becoming available. The survey estimated that over the next five years about 950 additional homes will be needed each year to meet newly arising housing needs.
  The council has been addressing the problems by requiring that 25 per cent. of all the houses built by private developers are affordable homes. I want the council to go further and to increase the figure to 50 per cent.—as it is in some London boroughs. Labour councillors supported that proposal when they were in power and I hope that the new Liberal Democrat administration will implement that increase. However, even if the council takes that step, more help will be needed from the Government.
  The City of York council presented evidence on that problem and on the affordability problem to the ODPM Select Committee inquiry on affordable housing during the last Session. In 2001, the average cost of a flat in York was £96,000. That is higher than in Portsmouth, Southampton, Milton Keynes, Medway and many authorities in the south, yet earnings in York are lower. In York, the average male wage is 83 per cent. of the average in the south-east, while the average female wage is about 86 per cent. of that in the south-east. The ratio of average house prices to income in York is 3.4:1, which is exactly the same as for the south-east of England as a whole, but considerably worse than for some authorities in the south-east. The ratio is worse in York than in Reigate and Banstead, Vale of the White Horse, Rushmoor, Hastings, Gravesham, Maidstone, Chelmsford, Bracknell Forest and Chiltern and South Bucks. Some authorities in the south of England, such as Reigate and Banstead, receive special help under the amended right to buy regulations, but York needs special help, too.
  In my constituency, the affordability problem is getting worse. Over the two years since these figures were compiled, prices in the north of England—especially in the hot spots such as York—have risen faster than in London and the south-east.
  In York, local people are, quite simply, being priced out of their own city. A typical working-class young couple, with two incomes—the man may be a trainee motor mechanic, living with a shop worker—simply cannot afford to buy or rent in the private sector in York. We need a campaign to provide homes for local people in the city of York.
  Last week, I received a letter from a notable local environmentalist, who emphasised the need to take account of the consequences of traffic in new housing developments. Of course that must be taken into account, but it is not an argument against development itself, because a lack of development also creates traffic problems, as people commute from neighbouring towns and villages, where house prices are lower. It is, however, an argument for a balanced housing development policy, and York is currently missing such a policy. The city of York council is accelerating building in the city centre, but it has put a block on the major development sites in the suburbs on the outskirts of York. We need some city-centre housing and some suburban housing, and we need some brownfield sites

  599
  and some greenfield sites to be developed. To address the traffic problems, we need a balance of development, not overdevelopment on any one site.
  York is a very attractive city. It attracts employers, residents and visitors, so we need additional housing, but that housing must be provided both in the city centre and in the suburbs, so that we can avoid the problems of overdevelopment, as well as the traffic management problems that additional housing can generate.
  7.41 pm
  Dr. Brian Iddon: It is a great pleasure to speak in another housing debate under a Labour Government. Meeting the Government's decency standards by 2010 in Bolton will be a much bigger challenge in the private sector than in the public sector. Last year, the council carried out another housing condition survey and found that Bolton has 21,000 houses in the private sector that do not meet the Government's decency standards. Of those 21,000 houses, 8,000 are in low-demand areas and many of them would be considered irredeemably unfit by environmental health officers and therefore need clearance.
  Of course low-demand areas are readily recognised because owner-occupiers vote with their feet, as they see the equity in their properties dwindling away. That leaves private sector landlords with opportunities to purchase properties at below market prices and to charge above market rents for them. In the opinion of Bolton housing officers, it is urgent that low-demand initiatives are introduced on a large scale to prevent the market collapse that we have already seen in the pathfinder areas.
  Bolton is tackling low-demand properties by making them warm and weatherproof, mainly using enveloping schemes, with selective clearance of the worst properties. Some new build is being brought into those areas to restore the economic balance and support the local infrastructure of shops, schools and so on. Car parking is being improved and play facilities are being provided, often for the first time.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning came to Bolton recently and saw how one of those areas had been turned round. A few months ago, houses were selling for as little as £3,000 to £12,000, but house prices have risen to £25,000 or £30,000 and above now that the area has been turned round. That is a sign of whether the policy is working.
  Since part 1 is about safety, as well as health, may I make a plea to the Government that all new build and refurbishment schemes provide hard-wired—I stress that term—fire alarms to prevent the unnecessary loss of life that we always see in such areas? Such alarms should be made mandatory. As recently as last week, yet another family—three young children and their mother—lost their lives in Manchester. Sadly, that is not an uncommon occurrence in areas of low demand.
  The first housing action area in Bolton was established in 1979, when the then Government promised that houses in that area would be given an extra 30 years life. I am concerned that that HAA, in my
  600
  constituency, and its successors are now reaching the end of that extended life, but we will not be back to those areas for a very long time yet.
  The existing fitness standard makes no reference to the energy efficiency of dwellings; neither does it distinguish between defective dwellings and those that present a genuine health and safety risk to the occupants. Enforcement of the fitness standard also presents local authorities with problems. I therefore welcome the new housing health and safety rating scheme in the Bill because it represents an attempt for the first time to score the health and safety risks presented by properties in more than 24 different categories, including the presence of carbon monoxide and even radon gas, as well as things such as lead pipes.
  Section 606 of the Housing Act 1985 requires local authorities to submit a written report to the authority regarding the unfitness of properties and potential for clearance, and requires the authority to consider such reports represented by environmental health officers. That will be repealed and replaced by clause 4, which will only require local authority officers to inspect premises on receipt of a complaint from a justice of the peace, or a parish or community council. Can my right hon. Friend the Minister assure the House that that will not effectively mean that our constituents have to live longer in unfit properties that might not be reported in such terms?
  Some 10 per cent. of private sector HMOs are deemed unfit for human habitation. As other hon. Members have reported, properties with three or more storeys pose a significantly higher fire risk than others. In 1997, research commissioned by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and carried out by Entec Ltd. found that 52 per cent. of HMO fires are in buildings three or more storeys high. Occupants of houses comprised of bedsits are about six times more likely to die in a fire than adults in an ordinary house. I am therefore pleased that the Bill will begin to tackle that problem, and I remind the House of my previous comments on hard-wired fire alarms, which should be mandatory in HMO refurbishments as well.
  I was pleased to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), who suggested that sprinklers should be provided in all HMOs. Sprinker systems are very high tech today. Some people think that, when a sprinkler system goes off, it does so in every room in the building, but that is no longer the case; the sprinkler goes off in the room where the heat is first generated and the system then follows the course of the fire, so the whole HMO would not be ruined by a fire in a single room. Many lives could be saved in that way. I am sure that the cost of providing improved fire precaution equipment will be offset by landlords' insurance savings.
  One of the consequences of the right to buy legislation has been that there are now many privately let dwellings on council or former council-owned estates. In Bolton, more than half the properties on some of our better estates have been sold on. Local authorities or RSLs can evict their antisocial tenants only to find that they go just round the corner into a privately rented house and carry on in the same old way, under a landlord who does not care about their behaviour. I strongly recommend that

  601
  the Government give local authorities the powers to tackle antisocial tenants and, indeed, antisocial landlords, where that habit is practised.
  I strongly welcome home information packs. One advantage of such packs is that they will prevent sellers from putting their houses on the market merely to test the value of their properties. I am concerned, however, about the cost of the packs. A figure of £635 has been quoted in some of the literature that I have read, and lower-waged owner-occupiers would find that to be a high percentage of the value of their house when compared with what the figure represents when set against the value of a house worth £500,000 or one that is sold for more than that. As I represent a constituency with many low-value properties, I am concerned that the Government consider carefully the recommendation that home information packs should not be required for properties below a certain value. A figure of £30,000 has been mentioned in some reports that I have seen.
  Finally, many people who have been persuaded to buy their former council homes cannot afford to maintain them. I therefore welcome the suggestion accompanying the Bill that council occupants be given careful advice on the cost of maintaining and running a mortgage should they proceed to purchase their council property. I am also pleased that the Government are stopping the abuses of the right to buy system that some of us have been aware of for a very long time.
  7.51 pm
  Dr. Desmond Turner: It gives me particular personal pleasure to be called to speak in the debate on the Bill's Second Reading as a large part of it represents an enactment of the measures for the licensing of houses in multiple occupation that formed part of my recent Home Energy Conservation Bill. Like so many excellent private Member's Bills, it was sabotaged on the final stages of its passage through the House.
  For far too long, HMOs have been a blot on our housing landscape. All too often, they represent the worst housing standards of any sector in the housing market. The need for regulation has been apparent for a long time, and I am only too pleased to see the commitment to that being honoured through this Bill. I hope that the many hours of hard labour that I spent with very helpful officials in the then Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in preparing the provisions of my Home Energy Conservation Bill are reflected in this Bill. Although it is hard to see from the face of the Bill, I am led to believe that it essentially contains the proposals and the details that we worked out at that time. I shall be sending in due course my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning an invoice for my consultation fees.
  My city of Brighton and Hove probably has as many HMOs as any part of the country, including many inner London boroughs. The issue directly affects thousands of my constituents. It is a well established fact that HMO residents suffer a significantly increased risk of death from fire and suffer from cold, damp and hard to heat accommodation and poor amenities. Many HMOs in my constituency have SAP—standard assessment procedure—ratings in single figures. In other words, they are virtually impossible to heat because they are
  602
  incredibly energy inefficient. This reminds me of my experience as a student many years ago when I lived in precisely the same sort of accommodation and sat in a cold, dank, draughty room huddled over a single-bar fire feeding coins into a hungry meter trying desperately to keep warm. I still have constituents living like that. That has to be completely unacceptable in this day and age.
  HMOs contain the most energy inefficient housing stock in the country and some of the worst fuel poverty. In fact, it is estimated that 39 per cent. of HMOs house residents in fuel poverty. We have a magnificent opportunity to start tackling two important problems: our energy efficiency commitments and addressing fuel poverty. If we can crack those problems in HMOs, we shall make a significant contribution not only towards the comfort of future residents of HMOs but towards the realisation of our energy policy.
  I have been assured in discussion with Department officials that the registration and licensing requirements for HMOs are essentially the same as those evolved for my Bill. That made a distinction between the nature of an HMO, which is a building occupied by members of more than two families, and the requirement for licensing. That distinction seems to have been maintained. Although the Bill does not say this, the expectation is that mandatory licensing will apply to the high-risk HMOs of three floors and five or more tenants. There is no question but that this is certainly the highest-risk category, but will Ministers consider the possibility of changing the wording to cover three floors and/or five or more tenants?
  Such a provision would bring under the scope of registration—certainly in my constituency—many terraced houses that are occupied by students. Those houses are of poor quality, have poor energy conservation standards and questionable safety standards. Such houses are worth licensing. If it is up to a local authority to license them because they do not fall within the mandatory scheme, I suggest that Ministers consider carefully the conditions that local authorities are required to satisfy before adopting discretionary licensing of HMOs outside the recognised mandatory high-risk category. That could make a large contribution to the quality of housing occupied by students and the management thereof. None the less, I am happy with that key provision in the Bill.
  I am also very happy—certainly in principle—with the new housing health and safety rating system. It is curious that the Bill does not say anything about it or even name it, but the provision would be much clearer and give people much more confidence if something were spelled out on the face of the Bill. The name would be a good start, and the provision should at least specify the principal factors that are to be taken into account in making up the HHSRS—fire safety, energy efficiency, room dimensions, amenities, condition of the fabric of the building and so on. All those factors and probably more—my list is not exclusive—should be specified in a minimum list. I hope that the scoring system will be so structured that a building cannot be given a pass mark unless it satisfies all the requirements. It should score adequately on energy efficiency, fire safety and on whatever other category is deemed to contribute. That is important, because if we are to require registered

  603
  HMOs to fulfil the HHSRS, it is vital that the energy efficiency component of the index is clearly specified and has to be met. That is the only way to guarantee the increase in energy efficiency and energy conservation and the reduction in fuel poverty that licensing HMOs gives us the opportunity to achieve.
  I would like the Bill to be made complete by addressing the opportunities that it presents but that it has not taken up. The first of those, which has already been mentioned, is a mandatory tenancy deposit scheme. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning made a sympathetic concession toward tenancy deposits, but the best way of illustrating Front-Bench sympathy for a tenancy deposit scheme would be to include a provision to introduce it in the Bill. That need not add much bulk to the Bill because it would require only two or three enabling clauses. Much of the Bill's work will be achieved through associated regulations, so the scheme could be introduced in that way.
  I, like several hon. Members who have spoken, would be interested to have measures to deal with empty properties. I would like the Government to consider the possibility of introducing the compulsory leasing of empty properties. That could make a considerable difference to areas such as mine that have a crisis owing to high demand for housing.
  My only criticisms of the Bill are about its gaps and some of its drafting—I must say that some of it is the parliamentary counsel's best. I would be happy if those on the Government Front-Bench were sympathetic to amendments to make its drafting a little clearer.
  8.1 pm
  Alan Simpson: Like several of my colleagues, I want to concentrate principally on several of the fuel poverty aspects addressed by the Bill—or, rather, not, at present, addressed by the Bill. I congratulate the Minister for Housing and Planning on the Bill and the listening process that has taken place throughout the consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny process. My only exhortation to Ministers would be to listen a bit more, so that we can get a landmark Housing Bill of which the House and the Government can rightly be proud. I shall concentrate on three aspects of the Bill that need to be strengthened: first, the absence of any reference to the decent home standard; secondly, home information packs; and, thirdly, the licensing of houses in multiple occupation.
  There is a compelling case for including a new clause to set a consistent standard on decent housing that would apply both to existing properties and to new properties under construction. It is nonsensical to set standards for new housing construction yet not to set such standards for improvements required to existing housing stock. If we are to have a decent housing standard, it should be simple and consistent. The decent housing standard must be mandatory rather than something that figures only in ministerial guidelines.
  The benchmark in relation to the incorporation in statute of such a standard can best be found in a piece of legislation that the Government have already passed
  604
  and of which I am particularly proud. I refer to the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000, which, for the first time in our history, included a commitment—a commitment by a Labour Government—to the complete eradication of fuel poverty in Britain in 15 years. The target is enormously ambitious and something of which the Government can be rightly proud.
  The problem is that we are moving from a position in which we have a policy to one in which we require a strategy to deliver that policy. Recent advice from the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group shows that the Government will be unable to meet the legal targets on the warm homes programme that they have set themselves in the required time scale. That situation makes a compelling case for adopting a mandatory set of regulations and standards that would allow us to meet such targets by regulatory means, in addition to through direct Government funding programmes. The advisory levels that define the decent home standard are currently so low that many properties and households are left in fuel poverty even after they have benefited from the warm homes programme, so if we do not set consistent and high standards in this Bill, we will be obliged to revisit the matter and do that in a Bill in the next one or two years. If we do not set such standards, we will be in a complete housing mess, but we could avoid that if we addressed the matter now.
  When the English house condition survey reported in 2001, it made it clear that we had 1.125 million local authority properties that failed to meet the current decent homes standard. Additionally, some 360,000 registered social landlord properties failed to meet the standard. Those figures do not take account of conditions in the private rental sector in which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) pointed out, there is the greatest concentration of properties with tenants whose lives are blighted by fuel poverty. That situation makes the case for addressing the matter in the current framework of the Bill, and I hope that that fact will be taken on board in Committee.
  I praise the Government for clause 133(5)(e), which makes it clear that a property's energy efficiency rating should be part of the information to be included in home information packs. I make only one plea about the provision. Reference has been made to SAP ratings—the standard assessment procedure ratings—but they are mind-bogglingly complex. The public now understand what an energy efficiency rating system looks like, because domestic goods are rated on a band of efficiency from A to E. There is a compelling case for simplifying the process so that people can be aware of the quality of energy efficiency that they can expect in a home in much the same way as they currently understand the efficiency of electrical goods.
  Finally, I shall focus on the licensing of houses in multiple occupation. There are 1.1 million HMOs in England. It is essential that we deliver our fuel poverty strategy so that it benefits those who live in wretched concentrations in such fuel-poor households. The regulatory system for achieving that must be inclusive rather than focusing only on the properties at greatest risk or in greatest need. That requires the definition in the Bill to be changed so that it is inclusive. It makes no sense to exclude properties with two storeys or five occupants.

  605
  My constituency contains two universities. The reality of the situation there is that huge tranches of it are areas in which traditional two-storey properties in working-class areas are being priced out of the reach of the poor because speculative landlords suck them up, fill them up and make huge profits out of them. It cannot be right to allow the exploitation of our housing stock to the exclusion of the poor. Local authorities such as mine which cover university cities require a social tool to allow them to maintain balanced areas in which schools are viable, communities exist and crime and disorder partnerships may deliver social stability for those who live there. If the measure in the Bill addresses only properties with three or more storeys, we will miss the opportunity to deliver a comprehensive package that would invite landlords to make a move toward properties outside the definitional net. We would not be thanked if we left that open.
  One specific aspect of the problem is "studentification." That is a horrible word, and I wish we had a better one. It is also a pretty horrible experience for both students and those settled communities where landlords take over properties. It has not been set out more graphically for me than in a letter that I received last week from Nottingham's Lord Mayor, who said:
  "The situation is made the worse because speculators have moved into Clifton"—
  Clifton is the constituency that he represents as a councillor—
  "in a big way, buying up houses to rent out, not only to locals but also to Nottingham Trent University students. A speculator, with several houses, can notch up a hefty income. Thanks to the insane increases in house values, many of these landlords have become 'millionaires'. It certainly beats working for a living! What they offer is destructive of community and that's why the Government should take action"—
  and take action now. I do not have the subtleties of the Lord Mayor's turn of phrase, but I subscribe to the urgency of his view of why we need to include such a measure in the Bill. If we can do that in Committee, we will have a package for which the public will thank us. Perhaps even large numbers of Liberal Democrat supporters and Members would thank us for that. They oppose the inclusion of such measures in the home information pack, but no doubt they would welcome it in their daily lives.
  8.11 pm
  Peter Bottomley: The House will wait until Report to see how far the proposals made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) are incorporated in the Bill. There are arguments on both sides in relation to a significant number of issues. We certainly know from the home care standards legislation that going too far too fast has caused chaos in a large number of charity-provided and commercially provided care homes.
  Worthing has the highest proportion of retired people in the country and nearly the highest proportion of people who work in and are served by residential homes, especially those provided by the ex-service associations for people with particular needs. We know that if legislation goes too far too fast, people suffer. It is also right, however, to have rising expectations of standards that will be met. That is why the argument about the number of floors and people is well worth discussing in Committee, even if I am not there to participate.
  606
  I am a charitable trustee of homes for the elderly, but I have no objection to those who provide homes commercially. I have also experienced owning a house in multiple occupation next door to the one in which my wife and I were living. We have seen some of the advantages and disadvantages of legislation. On the whole, I like to believe that we raise standards every 10 or 20 years. It is certainly right to raise standards on fuel efficiency so that fuel poverty becomes a thing of the past. It is also right to raise standards of safety. No hon. Member who has experienced the devastating effect of a fire in his constituency and the death of children whose parents have tried to save them would turn his back on the greater advantages of hard-wired fire-safety warnings.
  In terms of heating, in my former constituency of Eltham, entire blocks that were built with public money and run by public authorities were in effect wind tunnels into which tenants or prospective tenants in greatest need and with the least income were put. It cost them more than £20 a week to be cold. When it was possible to get the buildings clad and better heating systems installed, they spent £5 a week to be warm. Anyone who doubts the value of the campaigns in this House and outside—I speak also as a rather inadequate officer of the all-party homelessness group—need only go into the home of a person on a relatively low income who spends a relatively low proportion of that income on heating to understand how it is possible to reduce the number of excess deaths in winter.
  We should consider whether social landlords, housing associations or councils that still have large housing stock should be required to give a condition survey and report to those who are offered tenancies. It is no good saying to prospective tenants who are homeless or in great housing need that they should take the first offer that is made. The council or the landlord may have offered that home to several other people who have all taken their chance of saying no because its condition is inadequate. Why should that be hidden so that the person with the fewest options takes the place that has been turned down by the most people and has the worst experience living there?
  In the same way, if I were to sell my privately owned house—subject to the consent of my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley)—I would have to declare my experience with the neighbours. Were I getting trouble from my neighbours, which I am not, I would have to declare that. Why is it possible for a registered landlord or council to make an offer to someone in critical housing need and not tell them that the previous tenant and the one before were allowed to move because of the unacceptable and intolerable behaviour of someone living above, below or on one side of the property? We should increasingly ensure that the same tests exist for those who are tenants or who will be tenants of councils and registered social landlords, so that important information in a market of housing—whether it is a social market or a more enterprising market—is available, and the same standards are expected.
  I could take up many issues, but I want to revert to what happened when I first became a Member of Parliament and the years after that. I was elected in 1975. There was a change of national Government after four years and the Conservative party, perhaps without

  607
  knowing where it intended to go, moved—stumbled is not quite the right word—into the right-to-buy business. That business has allowed 2 million families and their successors—so by now it is probably 3 million families—to be independent. Self-determination is important. People should not have to go to a landlord and say, "I want a spare room for my granny or someone I care about, or for my model railway set". It should not be necessary to have to go to a landlord and say, "I want to come down to live in Worthing because I have no more reason to live in one of the large cities." That freedom of movement and self-determination reflect the value of autonomy. I am a great believer in social interaction and solidarity. I am also a great believer in people being able to make choices for themselves, and right to buy has helped that.
  I challenge those who argue that in areas of housing stress, where more people are applying for homes from a social landlord or a council, the right to buy should be restricted. Take Peckham, for example. In the late 1970s, more than 85 per cent. of the homes in most of its areas were owned by the local councils—the Greater London council and the borough council. They did not need more social housing; they needed less social housing. They needed a mixture so that those with get up and go could get up and stay rather than get up and leave. We should be careful about taking a still photograph; we should take a moving picture so that we know how people move into and out of housing need.
  I like to believe that when my party comes back into service in national Government it will restore an impetus to the right to buy and restore the discounts that the Government are restricting. The right to buy is good. The fact that someone manages to get social housing or needs to get social housing aged 18, 28, 38 or 48 should not mean that 10 or 20 years later, when their circumstances have changed, they are stuck.
  Ms Oona King: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the main problem with right to buy is that it pits two of the most vulnerable groups against each other? It pits those who cannot afford to rent or buy on the private market against those who are homeless. That was precisely the choice in Tower Hamlets. Surely someone with his background could not possibly agree to extending and continuing the abuse that led to that situation.
  Peter Bottomley: One reason why I shall probably not be a success in my chosen way of life is that I thought that that was exactly what I was arguing. There is a good case to make that anyone who has been a social tenant should not have to pay rent after 20 years because presumably the reason they are still a social tenant is that they cannot afford to pay the rent. Once people get to retirement age, many of them are on housing benefit, and it would probably be simpler for housing providers to say, "Here's the property, and we'll go on looking after the maintenance." How do most of us get our chance to become independent in housing? We get it through inheritance or because our earnings change. I do not want to get into the family life cycle or opportunities and income now; perhaps we could discuss that in another debate.
  608
  I want to make one last point that is often forgotten. It has been said that same-sex relationships should be treated in the same way as heterosexual relationships. What about siblings? Why, for inheritance tax or pension provision, do we say that a sexual or near-sexual relationship matters more than connections of chance, such as having the same parents? Why should pension provision exclude brothers and sisters who have been living together, supporting each other? Why do I even have to ask the Minister whether the provisions in clause 165 will have the same beneficial impact on a brother and sister living together as on a same-sex couple? If the answer is that siblings are covered, I am pleased, but we ought to be clear that relationships within a family are as important as those in which people from separate families choose to live together.
  I want to let others speak, so I shall not use all my time. I simply want to say that over the 28 years I have been here we have acquired a greater sense of reality. We have achieved a great deal but, to put it bluntly, we will still be stuck with problems if we can have a debate such as this while ignoring the fact that house values have been going up by 10 or 15 per cent. a year for each of the last six or seven years, which has a massive impact on all that we are trying to achieve. We also need to understand that many more people will inherit homes, and the division between the haves and have-nots in housing is growing more than it ought. We should not have over half the value of a home in the land value—that is another set of problems.
  8.22 pm
  Geraldine Smith: I broadly welcome most of the measures in the Bill; indeed, I warmly welcome the arrangements for the mandatory licensing of houses in multiple occupation and the discretionary licensing powers to be given to local authorities. However, owing to the complexity and subjective nature of the assessment process, some of these measures will be difficult to enforce. Also, because the Bill's implementation will depend heavily on the expertise and commitment of local authorities, there will undoubtedly be a wide variation in the level of success achieved in different areas.
  Nevertheless, overall the Bill provides local authorities with a number of useful tools to deal with rogue landlords without overburdening the majority of decent landlords who make a valuable contribution to meeting the nation's housing needs. I firmly believe that many of the Bill's provisions will be extremely helpful in my constituency, particularly in the town of Morecambe that lies at its heart. Following the sharp decline in the domestic holiday trade that occurred during the 1970s and '80s, Morecambe, in common with many other British seaside resorts, was left with a huge number of redundant hotels and guesthouses. Much of that former holiday accommodation is decaying and in a poor state of repair. In the main, it is used as cheap, substandard HMOs.
  The availability of so much cheap rented accommodation has acted as a magnet for disadvantaged and dysfunctional individuals and families from all over the north of England. That has resulted in a largely itinerant population inhabiting some parts of central Morecambe and its west end. Unemployment, drug and alcohol abuse, crime and

  609
  antisocial behaviour are rife in those areas. That, in turn, impacts on businesses, property prices and the quality of life in those and neighbouring communities. I am totally convinced that reducing the over-supply of cheap rented accommodation is the key to alleviating the problems that abound in those parts of Morecambe.
  I should like to pay tribute to English Partnerships and the regional development agency, from which Morecambe is receiving help and support. In particular, I thank the northern director of English Partnerships, Bill Skilki, for his personal help and support in Morecambe. I am confident that the assistance of those bodies, coupled with the constructive application of these measures, will enable the local authority to deal effectively with the housing issues that have blighted our town for so long.
  Part 1 replaces the current housing fitness standard with a housing health and safety rating system, and adapts and extends the powers available to local authorities to deal with poor housing conditions by means of enforcement. There is no doubt that the bricks-and-mortar approach of the housing fitness standard falls short of what is required properly to assess the risk to the health and safety of a property's occupants. The proposed rating system offers a much wider assessment of the impact on health. However, the methodology that is to be applied in producing the ratings appears to be heavily dependent on the personal opinion of a housing officer. Those subjective judgments will undoubtedly be open to challenge and could make it difficult to proceed with the enforcement mechanisms in the Bill.
  Part 2 places a duty on local authorities to ensure that HMOs with three or more storeys and five or more occupants are licensed. Additionally, provision is made for local authorities to have discretionary powers to license other HMOs. Although I warmly welcome both those measures, like many Members I would have preferred that all HMOs were subject to the mandatory licensing arrangements. The three-storey, five-occupant criteria appear to be arbitrary and are no indication of premises' suitability for habitation. Of course, I welcome the fact that the granting of a licence will be dependent on applicants having suitable management arrangements in place, and the £20,000 maximum penalty for letting in breach of the licensing conditions is appropriate.
  Part 3 gives local authorities the power to license private landlords in areas with high levels of antisocial behaviour. The suitable management criteria and penalties for breaching licensing regulations will be applied. I fully welcome those provisions. Equally, I welcome the recognition that the antisocial behaviour of tenants is not the sole responsibility of landlords, and I welcome the measures to support and assist them.
  The additional control measures in part 4, interim and final management orders and overcrowding notices all appear to be soundly based.
  Part 5 places a new legal duty on people who are selling properties in England and Wales to prepare a home information pack before putting their property on the market. I believe that the packs will be of great value to anyone who wishes to purchase a property. The information contained in the home condition report will enable prospective buyers to make a realistic estimate of the property's true value; it will also prevent the
  610
  frustration and expense incurred by prospective buyers when fundamental flaws in the property's structure are discovered only at a very late stage. Although I wholeheartedly welcome the introduction of the home information packs, I think that there will probably be substantial teething troubles in the early days in terms of both delays in HIP preparation and the ability to police the scheme effectively and invoke the enforcement procedures. Despite those difficulties, the measures are well worth while and should be adopted.
  Part 6 contains several important measures, including additional remedies to tackle antisocial behaviour, such as the extension of introductory tenancy schemes, additional powers to withhold consent for mutual exchanges, and the suspension of the right to buy of tenants who have a demotion pending or possession orders against them. Each measure will be a useful additional tool to bring pressure to bear on the elements of society who, through their disgusting and selfish behaviour, blight the lives of so many decent people.
  Part 6 also contains measures to deal with abuse of the right-to-buy scheme and to protect the stock of affordable housing. That is a most welcome provision. That part of the Bill also grants same-sex couples the same right to succeed to tenancies as married partners of different sexes already have. That is a long overdue and welcome measure. Equally important is the extension of the disabled facilities grant to people living in caravans, who were previously excluded.
  The final element of part 6 to which I shall refer deals with the proposal to extend the power of the Housing Corporation in England and the National Assembly for Wales to give social housing grants to companies other than registered social landlords. I fully support the proposal, which will inject much-needed competition into the provision of affordable housing and will tend to produce mixed and balanced neighbourhoods.
  In conclusion, I believe that the Bill offers the opportunity to make real progress towards the eradication of poor housing and rogue landlords. I look forward to its passage through Parliament.
  8.31 pm
  Ms Karen Buck: I draw hon. Members attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests.
  How could I not welcome the Bill, representing as I do a constituency where the housing was for decades synonymous with the worst abuses of private landlords, such as Hoogstraten and Rachman? I would have welcomed the Bill's provisions seven or eight years ago, when I was leading a campaign against a hostel on Edgware road that Westminster council had ignored for seven years. In that hostel at any given time 200 people, including dozens of children, shared 12 cookers. I shall never forget the couple—I know them still—who brought their new baby home to Clarendon court hostel and spent the night taking it in turns to stay awake in order to pick cockroaches out of their child's nose, ears and mouth. I am happy to say that I finally persuaded the environmental health department to prosecute the hostel's owners, who received the highest fine ever imposed on a private landlord.
  I could have done with the provisions of the Bill when, not so long ago, I discovered in my own road a boarding house—one of several often used by labourers who

  611
  come over from Ireland to work on the railways and the roads—where a 79-year-old man was renting a garden shed and had been for the previous 40 years. Despite being well overdue, the Bill is very welcome indeed because, as many hon. Members have said, we still encounter terrible examples of poor conditions in the private rented sector.
  However, times change, and so do areas, and what is true in many parts of the country is now less true in areas such as central London. What were terrible private sector properties have, for the most part, although there are exceptions, either been turned over to housing associations—some of the properties in the Rachman-land of north Kensington have been turned over to bodies such as Notting Hill Housing Trust, gone up-market and now retail for £250,000 to £500,000—or been rented back to homeless families. One of the reasons I strongly welcome the provisions on right to buy is that although it has been a great success in terms of enabling sections of the population who would otherwise have had no access to equity to get it, in areas of extremely high demand the properties—often the worst—are being rented back in their hundreds and thousands not only to the people on housing benefit whom my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) mentioned earlier, but in my constituency to the local council. Properties sold under right to buy are now being rented back as temporary accommodation, and housing benefit covers the £250 or £300 a week rent charged for properties that are next door to properties that are being rented for £90 a week.
  It is therefore essential to have a check on the right to buy, certainly until supply has expanded sufficiently to give us the luxury of such choices. I agree with much of the sentiment expressed by the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley). However, under the right-to-buy scheme, the most desirable properties have been sold, including street properties, low-rise properties and properties in better neighbourhoods, which means that choice for the poorest and the most vulnerable, to whom he referred, has been removed. Properties on the 20th floor of a tower block or the worst of the deck-access estates are now the only ones available to many of my constituents. The problem was never the right to buy—it was the fact that we did not create the opportunity to build new stock of equivalent quality for 20 years.
  We often discuss the increase in the number of people who are seeking to be categorised as homeless which, as I have said on a number of occasions, is connected to the issue of asylum. I remind the House that although the number of homeless acceptances is 10,000 below what it was 10 years ago, the number of new lettings has fallen from just over 40,000 a year to just over 30,000 a year. The problem is therefore supply, and we must deal with it before we can develop other opportunities, including the equity opportunity. Several colleagues have alluded to the omission from the Bill of a provision to deal with the pressure of supply. There should also be a provision allowing us scope to address the crisis of overcrowding, as we need an opportunity to deal with the problem. We cannot go into the 21st century with legislation dating not just, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) said, from the 1930s but from the 19th century.
  612
  Every time I speak about such issues in the House I raise new circumstances that should be treated as intolerable in the modern world. Just before Christmas, I met a family of seven who share a two-bedroom house. Three teenagers, three younger children and their mother live in a small two-bedroom house. Recently, environmental health services advised them to house one of the children not in the kitchen or living room but under the stairs. That may be a macabre but neat trick in the Harry Potter novels, but it is quite unacceptable in the 21st century. I accept that we cannot include detailed provisions about the nature of acceptable accommodation in the Bill. The Minister has kindly listened to our representations, and committed the Government to research enabling us to understand the scale of the problem. However, we have a chance to address the issue in the Bill—we cannot afford to lose the opportunity in what may be the last housing Bill for some years to grasp the nettle and make sure that it includes a definition of overcrowding to meet the needs of the modern world.
  Ms Oona King: As my hon. Friend is aware, the Minister kindly met us to discuss the issue and is sympathetic to our concerns. Does she share my concern that there may be a downgrading of standards if, in arrangements for same-sex siblings, the disregard of 10-year-olds is extended to cover 12-year-olds? Under those arrangements, one of my constituents shared a bedroom with her father until the age of 23.
  Ms Buck: I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that the Minister will clarify the position, because under current legislation on overcrowding, a child under 10—we must wait to see whether that will be amended to 12—is treated as half a person. My son turned 10 on 27 December, but I did not notice him doubling in size between the 26th and the 28th. A child needs a lot of space, and if we are to ensure, as the Government so commendably want to do, that our children have the opportunity to enjoy good health and achieve decent educational attainments, they must be given that space.
  A nine-year-old takes a lot of space; indeed, a baby under the age of one should also be treated as a human being and not discounted entirely for this purpose.
  In our constituencies, we have families in which a baby or two, a toddler or two and teenagers are all crowding into the same accommodation. Partly by recognising the scale of the overcrowding pressures and the research on that, the Government must start using their influence with the Housing Corporation and others, and possibly even through the new private sector companies, to say that in areas of housing stress the need for larger accommodation must be recognised. The latest Joseph Rowntree study pointed out clearly that if we are to have a proper social mix in the cities, a financial imperative to create one-bedroomed and two-bedroomed properties is no good, because that is precisely what is driving families out of inner-city areas and unbalancing the delicate cohesion in the community in relation to all its different sections. I urge the Government to take that opportunity.
  Finally, I want to support those colleagues, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who have raised the issue of Travellers. I have a Travellers' site in my constituency,

  613
  and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, a Conservative council, has always been positive in dealing with some of the issues in relation to that estate. I am also grateful to the Government for the substantial investment that was put into that site a couple of years ago, which enabled the facilities to be upgraded, which in turn is very welcome. If my hon. Friend were to visit that estate, which is buried under several of the slip roads to the Westway, he would see a kind of vision of hell. As it happens, however, several of its residents would prefer to stay on that site to roaming around in a country in which, as the Institute for Public Policy Research and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's research have found, there is a pitiful shortage of sites. It is precisely because there are so few official sites that are properly regulated and managed that we have some of the tensions between the community and Travellers. If we are to look for a long-term solution, it is an imperative that the Government also take the opportunity to return to some form of the provisions that applied before the repeal in 1994 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968. We must examine the responsibilities of local authorities across the country to ensure an adequate supply of caravan sites.
  8.42 pm
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: I welcome the Bill. In any hierarchy of human need, the shelter and security afforded by a home will always rank high. In a country in which the principal asset of many millions of people is their own home, and in which access to suitable, affordable, decent-quality housing is the dominating issue in many millions of lives, we will consider few more important Bills in this Parliament.
  I agree with many who have already spoken in believing that this should and could be a bigger and better Bill, and I believe that it should be a flagship Bill. It is a good Bill so far, because it aims to address the issues faced by some of the most vulnerable people in our society in some of the most problematic housing in our country. In particular, I support strongly the Bill's aim to improve housing conditions, to license houses in multiple occupation and the people who own and manage them, and to introduce home information packs for use at the time of house sales. I deeply regret, however, the fact that the Government have so far resisted all efforts to persuade them to include measures that they have agreed are necessary to improve conditions, to strengthen licensing, to provide better information at the time of sale and to protect vulnerable people living in park homes.
  The minority of rogue park owners who make their residents' lives a misery ensure that park homes are a significant part of the housing problems of this country. If we get rid of those people through the right legislation, I believe that park homes can be a big part of the solution, providing affordable, adaptable, good-quality sustainable housing. It is vital that the Bill is amended to include legislative proposals that are supported by 150 Members of the House, by the park homes industry, by the four residents associations, by the Local Government Association, and above all by the Government themselves. The Government's excellent response to the park homes review acknowledges that park homes are housing, and accepts the case for major
  614
  reform in respect of three key issues. The time for that reform is now: park homes reform belongs here, in this Bill.
  I welcome the introduction of a housing health and safety rating system and the identification of hazards included in the fact sheet issued by the ODPM, which certifies that it will apply to all types of dwelling. Among them are hazards arising from gas, electricity and water supplies, inadequate lighting, fire and inadequate arrangements for sanitation and drainage. Those are huge issues for people living in some of the worst properties in the country in the private rented sector, but they are also of major concern for people—often elderly—who live in park homes. The Government's October 2001 response to the park homes working party states:
  "At a minimum model standards need to reflect current recognised best practice on the provision of services such as gas, electricity, water supply, drainage, sewerage and flood protection."
  Park homes are housing, and park home reform belongs in the Bill.
  Clause 3 requires local authorities to consider housing conditions in their districts. Many authorities will not be able to do that without considering conditions in residential parks. Clauses 5 to 37 set out local authorities' powers in relation to the enforcement of housing standards. Authorities will fail in their duties if they do not consider the plight of elderly residents in parks where the electricity supply is inadequate and vital equipments fails; where lighting does not work properly, creating dangers in the dark; where there are floods leaving people marooned in their homes; and where homes are too close together, presenting a danger from fire.
  I strongly support the proposals in part 2 to license houses in multiple occupation, and to designate additional licensing areas. The Government have accepted—here again I refer to park homes—that it would be beneficial to place a duty on all local authorities to attach, monitor and enforce licensing conditions. Clause 55 contains excellent proposals relating to evidence establishing whether someone is
  "a fit and proper person to be the licence holder or … the manager of the house."
  When considering that, Members should also have regard to the Government's expressed intention that holders of park home licences and managers of residential parks should be fit and proper persons.
  Some very good people own and manage residential parks: Michael and Julie Ward, for instance, own two excellent residential parks in my constituency, and at the end of this month will for the third time be acclaimed as park owners of the year. Decent business people can make a good living and provide first-rate conditions for those living in residential parks. Some dishonest and violent people own such parks, however, and some who own and manage them harass their residents. The Government have accepted the principle that the protection against harassment that is available to park home owners should be on a par with that available to private rented tenants, and they have a great opportunity to put that right in the Bill. The current

  615
  maximum fine for breach of a residential park site licence is£2,500, a derisory figure. Clause 82 proposes a fine of £20,000 for a licence breach in the private rented sector; why not extend that to park homes?
  Part 5 introduces a duty to provide home information packs. Some of the main problems affecting residential parks are caused by a lack of information or sharp practice relating to written statements, and a lack of clarity in regard to implied terms at the time of sale. The Government have accepted that statements should be provided in advance, and have agreed that one addition to the implied terms should be a pitch plan showing the boundaries of the plot where a person will live. Those commitments could easily be stated in the Bill.
  It is more than two years since the Government set out their commitment to legislate on park homes, but so far they have said that there is no parliamentary time. Is there really no time? Is there no time for the elderly man being harassed by violent bullies who are trying to make him leave his home? Is there no time for the couple with limited means who are threatened with court action by a multi-millionaire when they try to mildly assert their rights? Is there no time for honest, hard-working people who put their savings into a park home and find that their park has been bought for cash by someone with a criminal record and an ability to cheat them? There is plenty of time—and the Bill is the time.
  I have been delighted to hear around the Chamber today ringing endorsements of the need for park home reform. No one in the House should expect vulnerable residents in residential parks to wait a moment longer for a modicum of justice and fair play.
  The ODPM Committee declared that there should be discrete park home legislation within two years. The Government have not given that commitment. I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) support the call for the inclusion of park home measures in this Bill. The Government have a hand-out Bill for private Members, but last week none of the lucky 20 took it up. The Government have agreed 13 recommendations of the park home review. I for one am prepared to table 13 amendments to this Bill. I should not need to draft them myself.
  The hand-out Bill covers harassment, the written statement and its terms and the age criterion for ending agreements. If the legislation is already drafted, and if there is any will to protect some of the most vulnerable people in our society from rogues and criminals, those clauses at the very least should be incorporated in this Bill right away. Park homes are housing. This is an important Housing Bill and no one in the House should ignore the needs of vulnerable people living in park homes.
  The Government have done an excellent job in setting up the park homes review, in responding extremely positively to the review and in setting out so many areas for legislation. They need to complete that excellent job by incorporating in this Bill all their promises to park home residents, to the park home industry and to anyone concerned about conditions in park homes. We can make it a really excellent Bill and bring real reform to park homes by that means.
  8.52 pm
  Vera Baird: I congratulate the Government on this measure and on the fact that it moved from manifesto to Bill, taking in not only pre-legislative scrutiny but substantial responses from the Government. It is clear that the Government have two completely opposite kinds of housing problem to deal with. In the Tees valley, where my constituency of Redcar lies, the prevailing one is low demand and housing market decline. That can have a devastating effect on communities.
  It is a problem that starts easily and spreads unstoppably like a disease before the eyes of the resident community. It takes just a few voids in older terraced houses that are not attractive now—they do not have gardens or parking spaces and are located badly. In Southbank and Grangetown, the two worst affected areas in my constituency, the houses were built next to the Dorman Long's steelworks, which is no longer there. For modern taste, they are a bit close to the remnants of that industrialisation.
  There are some excellent people living in those areas: the chair of my constituency Labour party, two councillors and a doyenne of my women's forum. Last year, we were visited by Lord Rooker. We were able to show him into some very comfortable and pleasant sitting rooms in houses that were situated in what was growing into a hell.
  Those voids are not taken up and they are then vandalised. The area's reputation declines and prices spiral downwards. No one will buy houses to live there now—they would be a poor financial investment and a poor personal one because the community is falling away. The area is beset by problems of vandalism, noise, antisocial behaviour and drug dealing. In short, it is a miserable environment.
  Occasionally in the morning in the streets of Southbank and Grangetown, there are knocks on the door, usually at the home of elderly owner-occupiers who are trapped in that life and cannot sell their house for a price that would buy them another one. It is a landlord offering them a bit of cash in hand to sell up and to move out quickly. The only other kind of purchaser is a different kind of landlord; one who buys empty houses cheap—half a dozen at a time, and usually unseen—at an auction many miles away. The common link between the two is that both are interested only in letting the properties to people who are on housing benefit, whose rent is paid directly to the landlord by the local authority. The reliability of their rent income being assured, the landlord has no interest whatever in the reliability of the tenant, and tenants—in what is now a fairly debased area—are not, to put it mildly, often very reliable. The spiral of decline turns into a whirlwind.
  In addition to the Bill, properly resourced housing market renewal is critical. The Tees valley has 59,000 houses, or 23 per cent. of its entire housing stock, at risk of this kind of decline. However, that steep decline is in patches. The Tees valley is not totally a conglomeration of ailing north-eastern Coronation streets. There are some very pleasant places to live where the housing market is robust. The answer is not demolition, but some demolition and renewal. These patches of decline

  617
  are close to more robust areas and are served by good facilities and public services. We need a change of mix and a new design to give fresh impetus to these urban cores.
  The Tees valley is not one of the nine pathfinders, but in the Centre for Urban and Regional Studies report—the genesis of the pathfinders—a good case was made out for us being the tenth. Even without that status, the Tees valley has set up a housing market renewal project with a board made up of stakeholder partners and is working on a costed action plan for housing market renewal with a delivery framework. Even without the resources of a pathfinder, we intend to have a template for integrated strategies across the local authorities and a framework that will make better use of existing resources. Clearly, we want to develop and present a persuasive case for help, with additional public funding from the next comprehensive spending review.
  In a situation of decline such as I have described, how welcome is the licensing of houses in multiple occupation provision that is in the Bill? HMOs are scattered through these areas of decline, with concentrations of poor physical conditions, threats to health and safety and poor management. They house often the most vulnerable people who are hostages to landlords who sometimes cannot even be found to fulfil their obligations, let alone be called to account.
  In assessing whether someone is a fit and proper person to be a landlord, certain offences have been taken into account, violence and harassment being among them. Sexual offences are not on the list; clearly they should be. No one should be licensed to be a landlord who has been guilty of a sexual offence.
  I join in the chorus that three storeys and five occupants is too narrow a category of HMOs to be covered. Smaller HMOs are just as badly managed, to just as much detriment to many thousands of tenants. I ask the Government to keep an open mind about that.
  We need to be clear about the consequences to tenants when there is a licensing breach, a failure to apply for a licence or a refusal by a local authority. Clearly, no rent is due, but tenants need information so that they are not persuaded that they are in breach of their agreement, and not subject to harassment or threatened eviction. There may be problems about interruptions to housing benefit claims and their reinstatement. Although there is no express provision for this in the Bill, I suggest that tenants should be consulted on the terms of licence and the character of landlords.
  There should be a link—I cannot now find it—between the licensing provisions and the housing health and safety rating system in part 1. For instance, it seems eminently possible that an HMO with a category 1 hazard could still be licensed to be occupied. That would be unwise. I worry about the hazards identified under the HHSR system, because they are measured as hazards against the most vulnerable tenants, and remedying them can be suspended while those most vulnerable sort of tenants do not occupy the property. I would suggest, first, that landlords may be less ready to rent to vulnerable tenants; secondly, that the system underestimates the fluidity of tenant changes; and, thirdly, that it will store up an awful lot of category 1 and 2 hazards, which in due course will overwhelm the local authority's enforcement provisions.
  618
  Selective licensing of other properties is also capable of having a major effect on the sort of suffering that I have described. I suggest that care is needed to ensure that the criterion of designation for licensing—that it is likely to be in an area of low housing demand—does not just drive problem landlords and tenants into the immediately adjacent areas, which might, because of their proximity, be problematic. I also suggest that some of the procedures are cumbersome, requiring the sanction of the Secretary of State or a trip to the county court, when they could easily be left to the discretion of the local authority.
  Although the right to buy changes are mainly aimed at areas of high demand and low supply, my area will welcome the suspension of the right to buy when there is a demolition notice. In north Grangetown where local housing trusts need demolition, there has been speculative buying for a quick profit, which has proved costly and held back redevelopment to the disadvantage of the bulk of other residents who needed the change.
  I would advocate the addition of simplifying and streamlining the process where owners are absent, abandon low-value properties and cannot be found. I have many more suggestions for changes and for inclusions, but I have no more time. I hope that the Government will continue to be as flexible as they have been so far, so that a currently very good Labour Bill can be turned into an excellent one.
  9.2 pm
  Mr. David Kidney: It is a great pleasure to see how in recent years the Government's actions have demonstrated their commitment to raising the priority of housing policy, recognising how it touches everyone's lives. We have seen a welter of activities in recent years: the communities plan backed by substantial resources; the housing pathfinders, including one at north Staffordshire just up the road from my constituency; the key workers scheme; the home ownership taskforce report on low-cost housing, "A Home of My Own"; and now even the Treasury is involved in commissioning reports from David Miles and Kate Barker. Today we debate the Bill as a welcome demonstration of the Government's commitment.
  My short contribution will concentrate on the requirements for home information packs and clarify why I support the Government's position on them. The packs will clearly affect all home owners who want to market their homes for sale, and a change in the law will definitely be noticed. We should bear in mind the fact that 70 per cent. of people are owner-occupiers and, according to Government research, 1.8 million of them in England and Wales put their houses on the market each year, so there can be no question of sneaking the legislation through. It will affect an important market.
  The current process of buying and selling houses in England and Wales is cheap by international standards, but also long lasting. It involves many different stages: marketing the property, drawing up contracts, checking proof of title, making standard inquiries, applying for a mortgage and for a lender's valuation report, and various searches to local councils. Surprisingly, that list does not include obtaining a survey on the condition of the property by the person buying it. In fact, only one in five buyers obtains a survey.

  619
  During the lengthy process while all those activities are taking place, there is no binding contract—unlike in Scotland—between the buyer and the seller. So there could be several potential buyers chasing the same property, all incurring expenses in searches, fees and so forth. The seller is also likely to be in the same process as a buyer of another property. The Deputy Prime Minister's research shows that 60 per cent. of transactions are put together in chains of linked transactions, that the average chain has four such links and that the average time between accepting an offer and the exchange of contracts, which makes it binding, is nine weeks. So although there is no binding agreement during those nine weeks, either the seller or buyer can withdraw without any sanction at all. It is therefore no surprise to discover that the Deputy Prime Minister's research states that 580,000 transactions a year—30 per cent. of the total—failed. And of those failures, 28 per cent. were sellers who withdrew their property from sale.
  I accept that some reasons for withdrawal—such as a change in employment circumstances or in the domestic situation, or even bereavement—are genuinely forced on the seller, but I am sure that a lot of withdrawals occur because the seller was not serious at the beginning. What an inefficient system we have landed ourselves with! There is a period of more than two months in which no one is sure whether it will be possible to deal with their transaction. And in addition to the period of uncertainty as to whether a binding agreement exists, there is a 30 per cent. chance that matters will not reach that stage. Nor should we forget the huge cost waste during that period, in terms of search and survey fees, which the Deputy Prime Minister's research estimates at £350 million a year.
  It is true that estate agents generally get paid commission only when the sale takes place. However, lawyers tend to take payment for the services that they provided, whether or not a sale is achieved. So it is no wonder that the Consumers Association is at the forefront of support for home information packs. The current system may be tolerable for estate agents and lawyers, but it is nothing like what consumers should be able to expect. We should design it to focus on consumers' needs, which means that they should know very early on in the process the product that they are getting for their money, and what constitutes a fair price.
  A home information pack allows potential buyers to see early on a condition survey, local searches and answers to standard inquiries, and it allows the seller and buyer to settle on a price at the outset. As a result, there should be no expectation of a later drip, drip of information, leading to both sides trying to renegotiate the terms of the sale. Usually, the result should be a shorter period of uncertainty between acceptance of the offer and exchange of the binding contracts.
  I should like to quote the example of Maria Coleman—she has already been mentioned in today's debate—an estate agent in Bristol who gave evidence to the Select Committee. I know that she gave evidence because she wrote to tell me so, although I take it that she has not singled me out for this information, and that other Members have received a copy of her letter. I telephoned her last week in response, and spoke to her
  620
  for more than 20 minutes. I discovered that she introduced a system of home information packs in her estate agency in Bristol in 1996—before a Labour Government, and before the promise was made to introduce such a system. She did so precisely because she saw that it was consumer-friendly. Some eight years later, she has dealt with more than 700 transactions by providing an information pack at the outset.
  Maria Coleman says that in her experience, sellers and buyers routinely accept the surveyor's report as the basis of their negotiations. Surveyors accept liability to buyers, and all have professional indemnity insurance. Indeed, the premiums of the surveyors that she deals with have gone down during the period in which they have operated this system with her. She says that the surveyors routinely wait for payment until the sale has taken place. As a result, the failure rate in her practice has been slashed from the enduring national average of 30 per cent., to 3 per cent. She says that although 28 per cent. of sellers withdraw nationally, in her practice the figure is 4.6 per cent. It is no surprise that she says in her letter:
  "How great is that for the consumers?"
  So I said to Maria Coleman that as the system is a great success as a voluntary system, we can leave it as such, can we not? She said no, not at all. Although estate agents queued up at her door to find out how she was achieving such great success, hardly any are following her example. Most transactions are in a chain, and every person in it has to proceed at the speed of its slowest member. And all still run the risk of the 30 per cent. failure rate during the period in which they are exposed to that chain. She says that the scheme has to be compulsory if all consumers are to benefit. She gave the example of the only two chains that she has had in which every transaction was on her system of the up-front home information pack. A chain of four linked transactions, which is the national average chain, was completed in five weeks, while the national average from offer acceptance to exchange of contracts is nine weeks. In the other case, eight linked transactions—twice the national average—were concluded in nine weeks.
  If we pass the Bill, estate agents and lawyers can change their practices to fit in and consumers will definitely benefit. We can reassure the estate agents and lawyers that they will have time to adjust to the new system because the Government need time to train up all the new surveyors we will need. The Bill is an important consumer protection measure. It has the support of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, and while one can assume that it sees its members getting more business, the Bill is also supported by Maria Coleman; since she is an estate agent, one might also think that that implies estate agents must benefit, but if so, how come the National Association of Estate Agents still holds out in opposition to the Bill?
  The Bill also has the support of the Consumers Association, which is the undisputed champion of our consumers, which is why I back it. I have also had briefings from the Disability Rights Commission and the Royal National Institute of the Blind, which not only accept and support the idea of the home information packs but would like more information in

  621
  the packs about the accessibility of properties for the 8 million-plus adults in this country who have a disability. That is a good record to set against the estate agents and the lawyers who are holding out against the new system.
  9.11 pm
  Jeremy Corbyn: I would like to tell the Minister for Housing and Planning, before he runs away, that I thought I might help his career by saying that I shall vote for the Bill at 10 pm. He may want to consider his future career path, but I shall vote for the Bill and thought that he would be pleased to hear it. This is the first debate for as long as I can remember in which a Minister has sat on the Front Bench for nearly the whole debate: he went out for one cup of tea, but we can allow him that. [Interruption.] It may indeed be that he has no friends to go to, but we should thank him for being here.
  While I welcome the Bill—I see that the Minister has run away now—I do have one or two doubts about some of it. In many ways, it is good as far as it goes and good in its aspirations, but two things are lacking. One is the power to see through some of the necessary changes to bring about social housing of decent quality for people. The other is that the Bill does not provide the means to achieve its aspirations. In his opening speech, the Minister outlined some of those problems.
  I have received, as I imagine most Members have, a Shelter briefing on the Bill, which is interesting and useful. The tenancy deposit scheme issue is very important. Almost automatically, because of the way the housing market works, the number of people in private tenancies is increasing and likely to increase quite fast. That means that the national tenancy scheme is becoming more and more important to end the abuses and disputes that take place whenever private tenancies occur.
  My constituency, like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), has changed a lot. There was a time, 10 or 20 years ago, when houses in multiple occupation were normal, indeed common, throughout most of north London. They are not now; most have reverted either to family houses or been sold and divided into flats. The number of places that one would call HMOs has reduced greatly, although I recognise that they are an enormous problem in other parts of the country.
  The Bill helpfully deals with antisocial behaviour and the way in which many people simply make life hell for their neighbours, local residents and others. Those people can be drug dealers or pimps running prostitution rackets or just people who are deeply unpleasant in their behaviour towards others. We are all faced in our constituency surgeries with a desperation to get away from those people and those estates.
  While that is a respectable thing to want to do, it is not a credible solution. The solution is to ensure better running of those communities and those estates.
  The December issue of Housing Today contained an interesting article about the work of the antisocial behaviour unit of Hackney council, under its leader, Keith Veness, whom I know well. It has been successful in getting rid of many of the people who have terrorised communities on estates throughout the borough.
  Ms Diane Abbott: Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the most desperate antisocial behaviour, especially in London, happens when flats are taken over by drug dealers and become crack dens? In my constituency, we would like to see even more resources put into closing down such premises. Although Keith Veness is doing good work, as soon as one is closed down, another opens up.
  Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. Resources have to be put in consistently, over the long term. Sufficient police resources must be available to keep up the pressure, because—as we discover when London Members of Parliament meet, as we frequently do—the problem moves from one constituency that has had an effective operation to another down the road.
  I shall concentrate on issues of social housing need—the need for a better supply of housing. I recall a time when my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) and I were active in politics in Haringey. We were both councillors at various times and in the late 1970s we could say proudly that we would never again put children in high-rise properties, that all the new properties we built would be houses with gardens, and that we would attempt to create decent community neighbourhoods. There are some wonderful examples of municipal development by Haringey, Camden, Hackney and Islington in that period, which was a high point for housing, with a Labour Government providing sufficient resources and local authorities with the imagination to develop new estates.
  Tragically, a graph of the development of housing would show 100,000 new properties for council rent constructed in 1979, but only a handful—a few thousand—constructed last year by registered social landlords. The situation is desperate. The Government have commissioned a report from Kate Barker on housing supply, which demonstrates some unpalatable truths that we need to understand. It is all very well to assume that there is a market solution to housing need, but the reality is that 70 per cent. of all new households—they are mostly single person, but not all—cannot afford to buy a property. It is impossible to buy a property in my constituency even on an MP's salary without having a property to sell. That is the case for most of London. If someone who earns more than £50,000 a year cannot afford to move on to the housing ladder, what hope is there for a local authority worker, a nurse or a road sweeper?
  It gives me no pleasure to say that of the 80,000 homeless people registered nationally, some 30,000 are in London. Over the past five years, the only big increase in London has been in the number of people registered as homeless, living in grossly overcrowded accommodation in hostels or bed-and-breakfast accommodation. The number of new lettings has fallen and the number of new houses built has not increased. It is certainly not keeping pace with the number of people registered as homeless in London.
  I congratulate the Government on the money that they have put in to estate improvements, including new roofs, new windows and new landscaping. However, the market created the housing crisis that the poorest people of London and the south-east face at present. The market will not solve that crisis. It will be solved only by

  623
  sufficient public investment in new housing for build. The Government should not tell those living in overcrowded, badly run, dilapidated estates that the only way to improve their housing stock is to transfer to a registered social landlord who will be allowed to build dozens, if not hundreds, of properties to sell on the remaining bits of open land on those estates. Working-class communities which suffered 18 years of cuts and abuse under the Tories deserve better than that from a Labour Government, so I hope that the Minister will understand the strong feelings that arise when there are votes on housing transfer or, as occurred in Camden recently, on transfer to an arm's-length management organisation.
  I represent an inner-city area and I see the desperation of the people who come to my advice bureau—children who are under-achieving at school and truanting, families who are breaking up, unemployment and everything that goes with that misery. Nationally, the picture is clear; there are empty properties in the north-east and the north-west. If people want to move freely from London to those areas that is fine—I wish them well. Good luck to them and I hope that everything works out for them. But for people with an extended community network or from a particular linguistic minority, that is not a credible alternative. We need to invest in council housing in inner London so that the poorest people, who have loyally supported our party for dozens of years, can have hope and aspiration for the future.
  I welcome much that is in the Bill. I welcome the aspirations of the decent homes target, but that target cannot be met unless there is sufficient investment in, yes, high-cost areas to ensure that we have decent-quality housing for all those people. The Government will the ends, which are laudable, but they do not provide the means for us to achieve them. I hope that the Bill goes through and that it is improved in Committee, but I hope, too, that the Government will give us a much enhanced housing strategy in the future.
  9.21 pm
  Mr. Andrew Love: I am grateful that my speech could be squeezed in before the end of the debate.
  I welcome the Bill, not least in these straitened times, as it implements two of our manifesto commitments at the last general election: the mandatory licensing of houses in multiple occupation and the provision of home information packs. However, the Bill focuses primarily on the private rented sector and the raising of standards in that sector. That is not surprising when we consider that the Government have already very much addressed the needs of owner-occupiers, with the lowest mortgage rates for 30 years. If we add to that the stability of the economy over the past six years and the high rate of employment, with an additional 1.5 million people in employment, it is not surprising that owner-occupation has risen from 68 per cent. to 71 per cent.
  As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning said earlier, the Government have also addressed the problems in the social sector. He referred to the £19 billion backlog of disrepair, the fact that 1
  624
  million dwellings have been improved over the past six years and the possibility that all those homes will have been improved by 2010. The Government are investing in housing itself; the amount will rise to £11 billion in 2005 by the end of the current spending review. They have also developed the sustainable communities plan.
  The recent Barker report on housing supply revealed a number of things. I shall pick out two of them. First, most of the decline in housing supply is the result of the collapse in the supply of affordable housing since 1981. Earlier, someone claimed that the six years before 1997 offered some sort of excuse for the situation, but Barker shows clearly that the problems at the root of the difficulty have existed since 1981. When we further take account of the fact that since then 1.5 million properties have been sold under the right to buy, we can see that we face an enormous difficulty and that it will take a long time to replace those units of affordable accommodation.
  Secondly, the Barker report showed that only 1 per cent.—just 1 per cent.—of institutional property investment goes into residential property. Other Members have commented on Kate Barker's suggestion that we should look into some form of tax-transparent, real estate investment trusts, on the American model. Although I should be happy to do that, we also need to consider the main reason why that investment is not being made: the image of the private rented sector.
  All the studies show that, whenever tenants are polled, they always say that they do not want to live in the private rented sector. I could quote the National Union of Students report, which I assume all hon. Members have received, but I will not do so because of a lack time, although it is a very good indicator. Of course, there are many good landlords, but the image is undoubtedly formed by the bad landlords. The Hoogstratens and Rachmans of this world taint the whole private rented sector, and we have to do something about that if we are to get institutional investment.
  The Bill makes a very promising start in two areas. As many hon. Members have said, the first is the mandatory licensing of HMOs. There is great evidence to show a concentration of poor physical condition in HMOs. The estimate is that 10 per cent. of them are unfit for human habitation. Bad management practices exist, and there are health and safety concerns. There have been a number of prominent accidents in HMOs. Of course, very vulnerable tenants live in that sector, so there is a high risk. As I suggested to the Minister earlier—I repeat this, and it is in line with what other hon. Members have said—we need to consider HMOs because they are in the high-risk category and have multiple problems.
  Unlike my good Friend the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett), I do not think that we can rely on a voluntary scheme for local authorities. All the evidence suggests that, although there are many very good authorities that will deal with the issues locally, that does not always happen, so we have to ensure that we cover them properly. I am sure that that will be considered carefully in Committee. We also have to consider the difficulties of landlords withdrawing from the sector as a result of mandatory licensing. There are different views about that, but the Government need to

  625
  consider linking in to the homelessness strategies of local authorities to ensure that landlords do not withdraw from the sector.
  The second area is, of course, the selective licensing of private landlords. We need to deal with some of the most unscrupulous practices in the housing sector and scams such as housing benefit fraud, harassment and unlawful eviction, specifically because many of the neighbourhoods involved are in decline and that sort of activity will accelerate that decline. Of course demand will disappear altogether in low-demand areas if something is not done. We need to address the standards issue, and I very much welcome the measures that will ensure that landlords must be fit and proper persons. Indeed, licences will be withheld if necessary.
  In the very short time available to me, I cannot go over all the issues covered in the Bill, but I am moved to comment on the right to buy. As the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), the Conservative spokesman, has returned to the Chamber, I want to explore his earlier comments, which appeared to represent a shift away from the rather dubious policy of extending the right to buy to RSLs. I say that not in a spirit of party political bickering, but to raise the prospect that a cross-party consensus could emerge. I have always held the view that we need cross-party consensus if we are to improve the possibility of people owning their properties, while providing a good standard of affordable accommodation. I hope that the Conservative party will continue to move in that direction so that we can make progress.
  I want briefly to raise two issues, the first of which is overcrowding, on which other hon. Members have commented. I introduced a ten-minute Bill that raised a number of issues. Clearly, we need to end the Dickensian standards that currently exist; but more importantly, we need to collect more accurate statistics. I do not expect that to be done using measures in Bill, but I welcome the Government's move in that direction. We also need to inform policy in relation to the level of overcrowding. That is the missing link in all the housing stress problems that we face, and it could be dealt with in the Bill.
  A national tenancy deposit scheme would begin to address the friction currently caused by all the disputes over tenancy deposits. That relates to the private rented sector's image, and it creates a lack of confidence in the sector and a loss of trust in the relationship between landlords and tenants. According to the Government's estimates, there were 127,000 cases of dispute. One in five tenants have their deposits withheld. That is not all caused by rogue landlords. There are rogue tenants. Often, when a tenant does not think that they will get their deposit back, they withhold the rent. Sometimes they take to trashing their accommodation. The Bill provides a chance to address the whole image of the private rented sector. Although I accept that the Government might not wish to move in that direction in the Bill, there is some urgency over the need to move at the earliest opportunity on a national tenancy deposit scheme.
  Otherwise, I welcome the Bill's provisions. They will address the issues in the private rented sector that must be addressed if it is to contribute to the provision of good-quality, affordable accommodation in the future.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. John Hayes: This has been a useful and constructive debate, conducted without political rancour. In that spirit, may I start by saying that the Bill, like the Minister for Housing and Planning, is good in parts? Most Bills, indeed, are good in parts. [Interruption.] Well, I suppose that it is true to say that most Ministers are good in parts, too.
  Large parts of the Bill, however, are uncertain in purpose and unclear in method. I shall start by concentrating on the Bill's central element: licensing, on which most contributors have focused. It is true, in the words of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), the hon. Members for City of York (Hugh Bayley) and for Stockport (Ms Coffey) and my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), that we need to deal with unscrupulous landlords. We have no truck with people who exploit tenants, run bad homes or hostels, or target the most vulnerable of our countrymen and treat them appallingly. It is appropriate that we deal with that problem in a sensible and reasoned way.
  The Government's response, however, is a licensing regime that is, variously, mandatory, discretionary and selective. It is sometimes based on area of the country, sometimes on type of house, sometimes on the behaviour of tenants and sometimes on the behaviour of landlords. At best, it is confused and messy; at worst, it is inconsistent and ineffective. I do not say—I noted the words of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) on this—that the licensing system should be universal. We call not for universality but for consistency in a system that is clear, easily understood and workable. In my judgment, it is entirely inappropriate that, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), a small landlord with five houses could be subject to five different, separate, regulatory regimes.
  That would discourage the private rented sector at a time when the Government are telling us:
  "We will pioneer new approaches not traditionally associated with the Left, including a vigorous private rented sector".
  The Deputy Prime Minister, no less, has said:
  "Most private landlords are professional and responsible"—[Official Report, 4 April 2000: Vol. 347, c. 813.]
  That was repeated by the Minister for Housing and Planning in his opening remarks today. If we need a vibrant and vigorous private rented sector, we must not load it with additional burdens that would not have the effect, for which we all wish, of dealing with that small minority of rogue landlords.
  Several contributors to the debate mentioned fitness standards. It is important to adopt standards that are enforceable, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) said. I hope that when the Under-Secretary winds up, she will tell us what the cost of implementing the standards will be to local authorities. I understand that some £4.5 million or £5 million has been mentioned. Will she tell us what extra manpower resources will be required and how long they will take to put into effect? Will there be retraining? In some cases, new staff will be needed. Will she also tell us what account has been taken, in assessing risk and fitness and in measuring vulnerability, of the particular needs of disabled people?

  627
  Will the Under-Secretary mention fire hazard and fire precaution, on which the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) commented? My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) mentioned fire precautions and suggested proposals for smoke and fire alarms. I understand that such alarms are now quite advanced and could be implemented practically—I think that the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East also made that point. What specific measures will be put in place to deal with such matters?
  The modernisation—we must assume that that is a euphemism—of the right to buy is noted by Conservative Members, but we have doubts about the Government's real commitment to the scheme. After all, the Labour party took 15 years to reach the conclusion that the right to buy was a good idea. We reached that conclusion quickly, and it was articulated with verve and enthusiasm, as ever, by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley). I noted that one or two Labour Members, especially the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), were reticent about acknowledging that sound truth. Let us have an assurance that amending the right to buy will not have an adverse effect on the number of people who take advantage of it. We shall examine the proposals in detail and raise our concerns in Committee.
  The seller's pack is perhaps the most controversial aspect of the Bill, in public terms. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) became misty-eyed when he spoke about the packs. He was excited by the prospect of the effect that they would have on the market, but I do not share that boyish enthusiasm. I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, which is a difficult business since I usually regard Liberals with a certain distaste, because I suspect that the packs may well slow down the process by loading up-front costs on the market and that they might well be uninsurable. The Minister for Planning and Housing said that much of the information that the packs will contain is already necessary. He told us that surveys are not novel. Nor will they be novel in the future, because if packs were to suggest that there might be problems with properties, I suspect that a substantial number of people wishing to invest in such properties would commission an independent survey anyway. Only people who could not afford to do that would have to rely on a seller's pack, which would not be indemnified by the insurance industry. I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), suspect that it would be better to tighten up and improve the existing process to deliver the intended objective, rather than introducing additional bureaucracy.
  We have heard a lot about the seller's pack and the Consumers Association. Given the way in which it was spoken about this evening, I thought that it was going to appear on Mount Sinai and give us another set of commandments. I see that Labour Members know their "Exodus" as well as I do and can no doubt quote it chapter and verse. However, many organisations are rather less impressed with the prospect of the packs. The Empty Homes Agency believes that it is vital that exceptions be made for areas of low demand, which was a call repeated in the useful contribution made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew
  628
  Bennett). The Council of Mortgage Lenders is worried about the way in which the provisions will be implemented and says that the Government have failed to address adequately several of the issues associated with that. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors is supportive of the packs, in principle. but thinks that issues such as the packs' influence on market slow-down and the need for proper definitions of marketing, enforcement, pack provision and insurance must be addressed. The House Builders Federation suggests that the initial sales of new homes should be exempted from the requirement to provide a home condition report. There are, indeed, reservations.
  Mr. Kidney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hayes: I shall happily give way. I think the hon. Gentleman is about to become misty-eyed once again.
  Mr. Kidney: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we can deal with every objection that he mentioned in Committee?
  Mr. Hayes: I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's important and, no doubt, erudite contribution to the affairs of the House on that occasion.
  The truth of the matter is that the need for a seller's pack has yet to be persuasively made. The Minister says that the market is shambolic, but no one else seems to believe that that is so.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary will explain phased implementation in more detail. What is the time period over which that will occur, and how and when will it happen? As for opening up social house building to the private sector, will the Minister give us a little more detail? Will the private sector be at an advantage over registered social landlords? What regime will be employed? How will standards be maintained?
  All of those who argue for more affordable houses—the hon. Members for City of York and for Telford (David Wright), and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger)—were answered by the Minister merely by referral to the communities plan in his opening remarks. If the Government's only response is to point to the communities plan every time affordable housing is raised in earnest by Members, their argument will not persuade people in many parts of the country that are unaffected by the plan. We want more vision in the provision of social housing and more investment, as the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) said.
  So we have a Bill that is good in parts. As so often, however, what the Government say and what they do are different things. They want to make it easier to buy and sell houses, but they slow down the process by introducing the seller's pack. They want to stimulate a vigorous private rented sector, but they regulate, control and add costs to the point at which landlords are discouraged and expansion is likely to be frustrated. They support the right to buy, but they choose to make it more difficult.
  The Government want to provide more affordable homes, but they have no empty homes strategy. That is a particular omission. After extensive consultation and

  629
  the raising of expectations, it is not surprising that the Empty Homes Agency was profoundly disappointed by the absence of an empty homes policy. Similarly, despite raising expectations, there is no attempt to deal with fuel poverty. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson), who always speaks in a measured and considered way, made that point persuasively.
  The Bill does not concentrate adequately on fire precaution as part of the risk strategy that is at the heart of the business of raising standards, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden and the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown. There is no mention of park homes. Once again, the Government raised expectations and were expected to deliver, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton and the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). There is no mention of rural housing and the particular problems of affordability in rural areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater spoke powerfully, and with his usual commitment, on the needs of rural areas. He raised the interesting and important issue of the specific problems affecting national parks. There is also nothing to deal with the sharp practices by developers, again mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden.
  The Minister claimed that the Bill is big in vision. If it is, he is not looking at the right picture. It is right that we deal with inadequate housing. Bad housing is frequently linked to bad health and a poor quality of life. Opposition Members speak with great energy, passion and commitment on the business of dealing with the disadvantage and poor quality of life that derive from bad housing, bad health and bad living conditions— [Interruption.] Labour Members chide us and laugh, but they should remember that no political party has a monopoly on compassion or care. We care just as much as they do about the vulnerable and those living in the most difficult situations.
  The Minister is not looking at the big picture. It is not fair to say that the Government are wrong in detail. We have too little detail to come to that view conclusively. What is true, however, is that the Bill lacks the imagination and coherence necessary to make it the landmark Bill that is called for by a variety of Members on both sides of the Chamber. It is piecemeal, limited and uninspired. The Minister is a good man—he is genuine and I think that he will listen carefully in Committee. He can do better; the House needs something better; and Britain deserves better. I urge my hon. Friends to support the reasoned amendment.
  9.44 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Yvette Cooper): The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) laid claim to an awful lot of passion, anger and care about the conditions of those in the poorest housing and on the lowest incomes. It is a shame that all that caring did not add up to much when his party was in government, cutting investment and running up a huge backlog of investment in social housing and substandard homes throughout the country.
  Apart from the last contribution, the debate has been a good one, with many excellent contributions made on both sides of the House and hon. Members displaying
  630
  considerable expertise. I want to pay tribute in particular to the work of the Select Committee in scrutinising the Bill and making it a better Bill. That was a valuable part of the process.
  The Bill has been welcomed by a number of my hon. Friends, who expressed strong support for the licensing measures. Many have mentioned additional issues that they would like tackled in the Bill, and I shall come to those points in due course. Opposition Members also called for other matters to be included. The Front-Bench spokesmen broadly asked thoughtful questions, so much so that it was not clear from their speeches why both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats wanted to box themselves into opposing the Bill's Second Reading. The fact that the Opposition parties were unable to drum up many Back Benchers to speak against the Bill suggests that their spokesmen were misjudged in their opposition to its Second Reading.
  The Bill is important. It builds on the work that is under way to create sustainable communities across the country, which includes investment to ensure that everyone can live in a decent home and investment in new and, in particular, affordable housing. That is investment not only in bricks and mortar but in sustainable communities, so that everyone can feel proud of where they live. The Bill addresses unfairness and injustice. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) pointed out, it provides help for those suffering the worst housing conditions and those enduring antisocial behaviour. It tackles exploitation and profiteering, and it will help ordinary consumers in the housing market.
  The central measures that many hon. Members have raised are those dealing with the licensing of the private sector. As my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) pointed out, we need to expand the private rented sector. There is important, valuable work to be done there, so it is important that we tackle abuse by a minority of landlords. The Bill fulfils a manifesto commitment to license houses in multiple occupation, and rightly so because poor management by a minority of landlords, particularly in large properties with many tenants, puts lives at risk. The risk of death in a house fire is 16 times higher in a bed-sit house of three or more storeys than in a single-occupancy house.
  Many Labour Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) and for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner), welcomed the proposals and highlighted examples in their constituencies. They also raised the question whether the measures should be extended to smaller properties, and I acknowledge their points. We chose to concentrate on larger properties because that was where the evidence showed the greatest risk, particularly from fire. However, there is scope in the Bill to extend the measures to smaller HMOs where the problems are considerable. We take this issue very seriously.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) made clear the impact of the measures on selective licensing in areas of low demand. We know what the impact can be in areas where absentee private landlords have bought up properties but are doing nothing to maintain them, where graffiti and vandalism on the front walls or doors of properties go ignored or unchecked, where landlords

  631
  collude with drug dealers or abusive tenants and where no attempt is made to enforce tenancy conditions. Everyone else in the community—the council, the police, local tenants, community members and housing associations—is doing their bit to turn the areas round and tackle antisocial behaviour, but a small bunch of absentee private landlords are letting down the whole area and the community. They own the properties, they are making money out of letting the properties, and they have responsibilities to the local community just like everyone else. They should not be able to get away with ignoring those responsibilities, and the Bill will make sure that they cannot do so.
  Hon. Members have raised issues of concern that they want included in the Bill, and I recognise that some extremely important points have been made. We do not pretend that the Bill can solve all the problems currently facing the housing market or housing provision in this country. The Bill has more than 200 clauses and 11 schedules and it addresses a series of major issues. Considerable work has been done over some time to get the details of the legislation right. There will, no doubt, be a need for further housing legislation in years to come.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett), the hon. Members for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), my hon. Friend the Member for Telford, the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) and several other hon. Members expressed concerns about park homes. I agree that tenants in park homes do not have sufficient rights and are too often exploited. We have promoted a private Member's Bill on the issue and some of the problems that park home tenants face could be addressed via that route. Other matters require further work to reach the point at which legislation could be introduced. We are disappointed that the measure has not yet been picked up in the private Members' Bill process, but the Government are still open-minded on the issued and I am sure that we shall discuss it further in Committee.
  David Taylor: Some of the worst cases of exploitation are found in the hundreds of thousands of park homes. Although fairer regulation of park home owners and tenants is not in the Bill, is the Minister confident that appropriate legislation will be introduced in Government time before the end of this Parliament?
  Yvette Cooper: As I said, many hon. Members have raised the issue and we are open-minded about it. We shall give it further consideration during the Committee stage, but I reiterate that further work is required to reach the stage at which legislation could be introduced on many of these extremely detailed points.
  Mrs. Browning: Will the Minister give way?
  Yvette Cooper: I have to make some progress—there is a series of issues to address.
  632
  My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) and others voiced concerns about tenancy deposit schemes. I assure him that we are examining the matter extremely closely and taking particular account of the Law Commission's work on tenure. We shall continue to consider it over the next few months.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) and for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) spoke about overcrowding. We have commissioned research into the matter as a result of the concerns that they have expressed. We are worried that changing the law would not necessarily address the underlying problems, but we shall examine the matter further.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow asked for clarification on housing benefit sanctions for antisocial behaviour. She will know that there has been considerable consultation on the matter. That has thrown up two important problems, the first of which relates to the substantial practical difficulties, including bureaucracy and the perverse consequences of such measures. Secondly, there is a serious question whether it is ethical to introduce a sanction that applies only to those who are poor enough to be on housing benefit, and does not apply to those who may be committing exactly the same behaviour but who are earning too much to get housing benefit or who are owner-occupiers. For those reasons, we shall not introduce the measure in the Housing Bill.
  If I may, I shall write to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) about the constituency concerns she raised. I was concerned about the points that she made about the disabled facilities grant and protection for staff against antisocial behaviour, which are extremely important.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) spoke about site provision for gypsies and travellers. I agree that increased site provision is needed. We are considering a range of options, which I shall happily discuss with him.
  Let me deal with major issues raised by Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) complained about changes to the right to buy. The Government support the right to buy. Long-standing council tenants should have the right to make their home their own, and hundreds of thousands of people have done so since 1997. However, a small proportion of people and companies are exploiting the system at the expense of those who desperately need social housing, and that is unfair. There are cases of private companies and investors offering tenants incentives to exercise their right to buy so that they get the property at a discount, then they rent it out for a considerably higher price. An advertisement in The Sun said:
  "Realise some cash for that dream home, business start-up, car purchase or debt clearance. We're purchasing properties to rent as homes. We do this hassle free with your legal costs paid by us".
  Those costs will only be paid if sellers are eligible for the right to buy. Little wonder that in inner London, 2,000 ex-council homes bought just four years ago under the right-to-buy scheme are now privately rented at rents of between £750 and £1,000 a month, compared with

  633
  subsidised council rents of £300 a month. We simply cannot afford to let public money to be exploited in that way.
  The Conservatives are guilty of double standards. Even they recognise the need to put safeguards in place on the right to buy in rural areas where social housing is sorely needed and where the right to buy was being exploited. Those safeguards are good enough for rural constituencies—Tory constituencies—but the Conservatives will not back safeguards in high demand urban areas where people are just as desperate for social housing and where private companies' exploitation can do just as much damage.
  Opposition spokespeople expressed concern about home information packs, including the need for private indemnity insurance which, of course, is vital. We are looking at ways of ensuring that that important safeguard is in place, and I can assure the House that we will not implement the measures until we are confident that it is.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister give way?
  Yvette Cooper: I am short of time, but I will give way in a few minutes if I have time.
  The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon argued that there is not a problem, but in doing so they ignore the many cases involving not just Government Members' constituents but Opposition Members' constituents. A constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins) paid for three surveys on three houses because the first two attempts to buy fell through. One seller was just testing the market; another accepted a gazumping offer. Consequently, the buyer forked out three times over. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws), a Liberal Democrat MP, wrote to us out of concern for a constituent who forked out £1,700 on two failed transactions. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), a Conservative MP, contacted us with his concerns for a constituent who paid £1,000, only for the seller to pull out and the transaction to fail. The hon. Members for Yeovil and for Southend, West asked if the Government were going to take action to protect their constituents. The answer is yes, but Opposition parties are doing nothing about the problem, which is a crazy and inefficient way of operating in one of our most important markets—the buying and selling of homes. It is conceivable that late emerging problems with a single house sale could lead to three or four buyers forking out for the same land searches and the same survey of the condition of the house. That information is not provided in the market, and it has to be forked out for again and again. Little wonder that 30 per cent. of transactions fail, even after terms have been agreed. That is an astonishing failure rate for such an important market.
  Little wonder that the Consumers Association, the voice of the consumer, is adamant that home information packs are needed—[Interruption.] I am surprised by the dismissive response of the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives to the Consumers Association. They would rather back the Law Society or the National Association of Estate Agents. More than 90 per cent. of people surveyed by the Consumers
  634
  Association thought that the home information pack would be useful. Opposition parties have a choice—do they want to be on the side of the home buyer or the conveyancer? Do they want to be on the side of the Consumers Association or the Law Society? They have decided to back vested interests, but the Labour party is on the side of ordinary consumers, tenants, residents and home buyers. The Opposition back vested interests that want to continue the exploitation of ordinary people, which is why they will vote against the Bill. In the interest of ordinary consumers, however, we need to support Second Reading.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 139, Noes 375.

  Division No. 25]

  [9:59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Hammond, Philip

  Amess, David

  Hawkins, Nick

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Heald, Oliver

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Hendry, Charles

  Bacon, Richard

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Baldry, Tony

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Barker, Gregory

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Jack, rh Michael

  Bercow, John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Boswell, Tim

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Brady, Graham

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Brazier, Julian

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Lansley, Andrew

  Burns, Simon

  Leigh, Edward

  Burt, Alistair

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Butterfill, John

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Cameron, David

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Lidington, David

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Chope, Christopher

  Loughton, Tim

  Clappison, James

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Collins, Tim

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Conway, Derek

  Maclean, rh David

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Curry, rh David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

  Maples, John

  Mates, Michael

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Maude, rh Francis

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Mercer, Patrick

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Evans, Nigel

  Fabricant, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fallon, Michael

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Norman, Archie

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Flook, Adrian

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Forth, rh Eric

  Ottaway, Richard

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Page, Richard

  Garnier, Edward

  Paice, James

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Paterson, Owen

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Grayling, Chris

  Randall, John

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Redwood, rh John

  Greenway, John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Grieve, Dominic

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'biy)

  Gummer, rh John

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  635

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Tredinnick, David

  Ruffley, David

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Selous, Andrew

  Walter, Robert

  Shepherd, Richard

  Waterson, Nigel

  Simmonds, Mark

  Watkinson, Angela

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Whittingdale, John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Wiggin, Bill

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Wilkinson, John

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Willetts, David

  Spring, Richard

  Wilshire, David

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Steen, Anthony

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Syms, Robert

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Young, rh Sir George

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Mr. Mark Francois and

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Hugh Robertson

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Cairns, David

  Ainger, Nick

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Allan, Richard

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Allen, Graham

  Caplin, Ivor

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Casale, Roger

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Caton, Martin

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Chaytor, David

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clapham, Michael

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Austin, John

  Bailey, Adrian

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Baird, Vera

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Banks, Tony

  Barnes, Harry

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Barrett, John

  Clelland, David

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Battle, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Bayley, Hugh

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Beard, Nigel

  Cohen, Harry

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Coleman, Iain

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Colman, Tony

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Connarty, Michael

  Bennett, Andrew

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Berry, Roger

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Best, Harold

  Cotter, Brian

  Betts, Clive

  Cruddas, Jon

  Blackman, Liz

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cummings, John

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Breed, Colin

  Dalyell, Tam

  Brennan, Kevin

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  David, Wayne

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Browne, Desmond

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Bryant, Chris

  Dawson, Hilton

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Burden, Richard

  Denham, rh John

  Burgon, Colin

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Burnett, John

  Dismore, Andrew

  Burnham, Andy

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Burstow,Paul

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  636

  Doran, Frank

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Doughty, Sue

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Edwards, Huw

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Etherington, Bill

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Farrelly, Paul

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Fisher, Mark

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Keetch, Paul

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Flint, Caroline

  Kidney, David

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Foster, rh Derek

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Foulkes, rh George

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Gardiner, Barry

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Lamb, Norman

  Gidley, Sandra

  Lammy, David

  Gilroy, Linda

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Godsiff, Roger

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Goggins, Paul

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Grogan, John

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Hain, rh Peter

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Linton, Martin

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Love, Andrew

  Hancock, Mike

  Luke, lain (Dundee E)

  Hanson, David

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Harvey, Nick

  McCabe, Stephen

  Healey, John

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Heath, David

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McDonnell, John

  Hendrick, Mark

  MacDougall, John

  Hepburn, Stephen

  McFall, John

  Heppell, John

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Hesford, Stephen

  McIsaac, Shona

  Heyes, David

  McKechin, Ann

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hinchliffe, David

  McNamara, Kevin

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  McNulty, Tony

  Holmes, Paul

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  McWilliam, John

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hutton, rh John

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Illsley, Eric

  Michael, rh Alun

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Miliband, David

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Miller, Andrew

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Jamieson, David

  Mole, Chris

  Jenkins, Brian

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  637

  Moore, Michael

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Moran, Margaret

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Morley, Elliot

  Mountford, Kali

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mudie, George

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

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

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Soley, Clive

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Southworth, Helen

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  O'Hara, Edward

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochabar)

  Olner, Bill

  O'Neill, Martin

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Organ, Diana

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Owen, Albert

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Stunell, Andrew

  Picking, Anne

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Pickthall, Colin

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Plaskitt, James

  Taylor, Dan (Stockton S)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Pound, Stephen

  Teather, Sarah

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Prescott, rh John

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Trickett, Jon

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Truswell, Paul

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh"ton SE)

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton kemptown)

  Purchase, Ken

  Purnell, James

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

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

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Ward, Claire

  Rendel, David

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Watts, David

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  White, Brian

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Rooney, Terry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Wills, Michael

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Winnick, David

  Salter, Martin

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Woodward, Shaun

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Woolas, Phil

  Sawford, Phil

  Worthington, Tony

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Short, rh Clare

  Wyatt, Derek

  Simon, Sion (B'ham Erdington)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Mr. Jim Murphy and

  Skinner, Dennis

  Gillian Merron

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to standing order No. 62 (Amendemnent on second or Third Reading):—
  The house divided: Ayes 334, Noes 178.

  Divison No. 26]

  [10:14pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Cummings, John

  Ainger, Nick

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'tly NE)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Allen, Graham

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  David, Wayne

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Austin, John

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Dawson, Hilton

  Baird, Vera

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Banks, Tony

  Denham, rh John

  Barnes, Harry

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Dismore, Andrew

  Battle, John

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Beard, Nigel

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Doran, Frank

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Berry, Roger

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Best, Harold

  Edwards, Huw

  Betts, Clive

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Blackman, Liz

  Etherington, Bill

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Farrelly, Paul

  Blizzard, Bob

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Fisher, Mark

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Brennan, Kevin

  Flint, Caroline

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Foster, rh Derek

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Browne, Desmond

  Foulkes, rh George

  Bryant, Chris

  Gardiner, Barry

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Gerrard, Neil

  Burden, Richard

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Burgon, Colin

  Gilroy, Linda

  Burnham, Andy

  Godsiff, Roger

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Goggins, Paul

  Cairns, David

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Grogan, John

  Casale, Roger

  Hain, rh Peter

  Caton, Martin

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Chaytor, David

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hanson, David

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Healey, John

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Clelland, David

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Heppell, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hesford, Stephen

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Heyes, David

  Cohen, Harry

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Coleman, Iain

  Hinchliffe, David

  Colman, Tony

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cruddas, Jon

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  639

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Martlew, Eric

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Miliband, David

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Miller, Andrew

  Illsley, Eric

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Moffatt, Laura

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Mole, Chris

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Moran, Margaret

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Morley, Elliot

  Jamieson, David

  Mountford, Kali

  Jenkins, Brian

  Mudie, George

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jones, Marlyn (Clwyd S)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Olner, Bill

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  O'Neill, Martin

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Organ, Diana

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Keen, Ann (Brenfford)

  Owen, Albert

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Kidney, David

  Picking, Anne

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Pickthall, Colin

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Plaskitt, James

  Pollard, Kerry

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Pound, Stephen

  Lammy, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Laxton. Bob (Derby N)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Prescott, rh John

  Leslie, Christopher

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Purchase, Ken

  Linton, Martin

  Purnell, James

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Love, Andrew

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Luke, lain (Dundee E)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  McAvoy, Thomas

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

  McCabe, Stephen

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  MacDonald, Calum

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  McDonnell, John

  MacDougall, John

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McFall, John

  Rooney, Terry

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Ruddock, Joan

  McKechin, Ann

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  McNamara, Kevin

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  McNulty, Tony

  Salter, Martin

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McWilliam, John

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Sawford, Phil

  Mallaber, Judy

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Short, rh Clare

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Simon, Siôn (B ham Erdington)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  640

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Soley, Clive

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Southworth, Helen

  Ward, Claire

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Watts, David

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  White, Brian

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Wills, Michael,

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Winnick, David

  Taylor, Dan (Stockton S)

  Wintertn, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Woolas, Phil

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Trickett, Jon

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Truswell, Paul

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown>

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Gillian Merron and

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Mr. Jim Murphy

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Curry, rh David

  Allan, Richard

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Amess, David

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamdford)

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Bacon, Richard

  Doughty, Sue

  Baldry, Tony

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Barker, Gregory

  Evans, Nigel

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Barrett, John

  Fallon, Michael

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Bercow, John

  Flook, Adrian

  Boswell, Tim

  Forth, rh Eric

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Garnier, Edward

  Brady, Graham

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Brazier, Julian

  Gidley, Sandra

  Breed, Colin

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Grayling, Chris

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Burnett, John

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Burns, Simon

  Greenway, John

  Burstow, Paul

  Grieve, Dominic

  Burt, Alistair

  Gummer, rh John

  Butterfill, John

  Hammond, Philip

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Hancock, Mike

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Harvey, Nick

  Cameron, David

  Hawkins, Nick

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Heald, Oliver

  Heath, David

  Chope, Christopher

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Clappison, James

  Hendry, Charles

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Collins, Tim

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Conway, Derek

  Holmes, Paul

  Cotter, Brian

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  641

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Jack, rh Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Ruffley, David

  Keetch, Paul

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Selous, Andrew

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Simmonds, Mark

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Lamb, Norman

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

  Lansley, Andrew

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Leigh, Edward

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Spring, Richard

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Lidington, David

  Steen, Anthony

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Stunell, Andrew

  Loughton, Tim

  Swayne, Desmond

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Syms, Robert

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Maclean, rh David

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Maples, John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Mates, Michael

  Teather, Sarah

  Maude, rh Francis

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Tredinnick, David

  Mercer. Patrick

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Walter, Robert

  Moore, Michael

  Waterson, Nigel

  Moss, Malcolm

  Watkinson, Angela

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Norman, Archie

  Whittingdale, John

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Wiggin, Bill

  Öpik, Lembit

  Wilkinson, John

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Willetts, David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Page, Richard

  Wilshire, David

  Paice, James

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Paterson, Owen

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Young, rh Sir George

  Randall, John

  Redwood, rh John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Rendel, David

  Hugh Robertson and

  Robathan, Andrew

  Mr. Mark Francois

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.

HOUSING 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 Housing Bill:

HOUSING BILL (PROGRAMME)
  Committal
  1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.

  Proceedings in Standing Committee
  2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 24th February 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 that day.
  6. Sessional Order B (programming committees) made 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.—[Joan Ryan.]
  Question agreed to.

HOUSING BILL [MONEY]
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with Bills),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Housing Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(1) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State by virtue of the Act, and

(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.—[Joan Ryan.]

Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
DELEGATED LEGISLATION

  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
  That the draft Solvent Emissions (England and Wales) Regulations 2004, which were laid before this House on 11th December, be approved.—[Joan Ryan.]
  Question agreed to.

Southend Borough Council (Financial Settlement)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Joan Ryan.]
10.30 pm
Mr. David Amess: The financial settlement for Southend borough council for the year 2004–05 is nothing short of a scandal. In fact, I would go further and say that the Government have behaved vindictively towards the council. I hope to charm the Minister into reflecting on what I have to say and into revising the figures.
When the Chancellor of the Exchequer trumpeted another £340 million for council tax payers, our borough treasurer worked out that Southend borough council's share would be £4,000. I am sure that the Minister will understand how badly that went down with residents in Southend. I hope that the Minister will reflect on the three letters exchanged between the leader of the council and the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire, and that he will reconsider that right hon. Gentleman's refusal to meet a delegation from the council. If the Government felt that they had treated Southend borough council fairly, I should have thought that they would be prepared to meet a delegation. Up until now, I am told, they have refused to do so.
I also hope that the Minister will reflect on the census figures, which are inaccurate as far as Southend borough council is concerned. I hope that he will reflect on how the money has to go into education, which means that terrible cuts are having to be considered in social services and highways. I hope that he will reflect on the difficulties that the council must face on issues surrounding asylum seekers. Finally, I hope that he will consider the lousy deal that we have been given by the Government for looking after our young people.
There is currently great concern about the level of council tax. Some of my colleagues might groan at what I am about to say, but I am proud to tell the House that I made my maiden speech on the Bill that introduced the community charge. I still believe that if the community charge had been introduced with many exemptions and at a reasonable level, it would have proved much fairer than the council tax has. Every year Labour claims that its funding settlements are generous, but every year council tax across England soars. Every year Labour breaks its promises. Most recently, the Labour promise, made by the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire was that
"there is no reason why councils cannot continue to improve services while sticking to reasonable council tax increases."—[Official Report, 5 December 2002; Vol. 395, c. 1068.]
In reality, the average council tax bill rose by 12.9 per cent., with band D bills passing the £1,000 mark for the first time. Council tax on band D homes has increased by 60 per cent., or £413, since Labour came to power. During the years of the Conservative Administration, on average, taking all factors into account and after inflation, council tax bills rose by 2.1 per cent. in real terms. Under Labour, council tax has risen by more than double that figure, averaging 5.2 per cent. a year in real terms. I ask the Minister to reflect on the fact that Southend borough's council tax is the seventh lowest in
644
the country. We are very proud of that. The average council tax for a band D property in Southend is £851, compared with a national average of £1,102.
I am grateful to Councillor Sir Sandy Bruce-Lockhart, who is the leader of Kent county council—Essex Members have many friends across the water in Kent—who advised me that the proportion of the council budget funded by Government grant in the south-east for 2003–04 was 64.5 per cent., whereas in the north-east it was 75.5 per cent. That is some 10 per cent. more, which is grossly unfair. Some 35.5 per cent. of the council budget was funded by the taxpayer in the southeast, but only 24.5 per cent. of the council budget was funded by the taxpayer in the north-east.
Southend band D properties paid £854 for council services for the year 2003–04, which is a 15.7 per cent. increase. However, in Gateshead, a band D property paid £1,115, a 9.8 per cent increase. Gateshead council receives £261 more per household than Southend borough council. However, the real unfairness is that Gateshead council, which raises more money from the council tax, is rewarded by being given 10 per cent. extra grant by the Government. Total public spending per head of the population in 2002 for the south-east was £4,444, compared with £5,793 for the north-east. Why is that disparity so great? I would like the Minister to address that question.
Southend borough council's treasurer, Mr. Andrews, has advised me that if the council is to spend to the formula spending share, it will have to increase the council tax. The leader of the council, Howard Briggs, stated in a letter to the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire that for services to remain at their present standard the council needed to increase council tax by
"well over 20 per cent … which is unacceptable."
The borough treasurer has said that even with an increase in council tax, savings of £7 million would be needed. Like Kent county council, Southend borough council sees job cuts as the way forward, but that cannot be what this Labour Government want. The council intends to make savings by freezing recruitment and only advertising job vacancies internally. Job cuts will be made through natural wastage and all efforts will be made to ensure that there are no compulsory redundancies.
I know that the Minister has copies of all the correspondence between the council leader and his colleague, but I draw his attention especially to the letter of 3 December. The council leader states:
"Ever since Southend-on-Sea became a successful Unitary Authority we have managed our finances carefully and indeed"—
as I have already said—
"Southend is one of the lowest Council Tax authorities in the country. We have always spent at Government recommended levels".
That is where the real unfairness in the system lies—in social services.
My constituency is No. 1 in the country in terms of the number of residents aged between 100 and 110. That says it all. People in Southend, and especially in Southend, West, are living longer, and that ageing

645
population requires tremendous extra expenses for social security support. In England as a whole, there has been a 4.9 per cent. increase in funding for social services for children, but in Southend the figure is 2.4 per cent. The increase for social services for older people in England as a whole is 8.7 per cent., but it is only 8.2 per cent. in Southend; the increase for younger adults—those aged between 19 and 64—in England is 4.1 per cent., but in Southend it is 1.4 per cent. The situation is the same for other services; for example, the amount for highways in England is 2.8 per cent. but 1.2 per cent. in Southend.
The leader of the council warned the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire that the council tax increase would be 20 per cent., which is obviously wholly unacceptable. I have read the Minister's letter carefully, but neither the leader of the council nor I agree with any part of it. The letter was very, very disappointing.
I am sure that the Under-Secretary will refer to education funding. However, Mrs. Sally Carr, the chairman of Southend education committee, has advised me that Southend's entire budget settlement was not sufficient even to cover the increased amount to be passported for education—hence, extra money was given. The amount left for the rest of the council's services once the funding for schools is taken out will not even cover the rate of inflation, so services will be cut, charges will be increased and a high rate of council tax will be needed just for the council to stand still.
Southend was the highest delegating authority in the country, so it will have to continue to passport the same amount even though it is not directly funded. Last year, Southend took £700,000 from the LEA block grant to make up the difference for school funding and it will have to do exactly the same this year to maintain the amount that the Government say must be passported.
Southend cannot continue to sustain such amounts. We spend less per pupil at LEA level, because of all the extra work that the authority has to do with no extra funding; for example, by the end of 2004, it must be the clearing house for all secondary admissions, which is putting a real strain on central resources. Schools have received the required amount—less the £700,000 that we have to make up–but the rest of the local authority has received nothing, and social services especially will suffer.
I have said that settlements for children and older people are disappointing compared with those for the rest of the country. The social services department will receive an average increase of 4.6 per cent., compared with an increase of 6.3 per cent. for England as a whole. Southend's director of social care, John Nawrockyi, has advised me that up to 60 jobs will have to be cut due to the financial settlement, although he hopes that the cuts will be spread evenly across the department.
The council understands that the Government will penalise local authorities if they are found guilty of what is described as "bed blocking". If social services cannot move elderly people out of Southend hospital, they will be penalised with fines of £100 per person. In an article in the excellent Leigh Times, the leader of the local authority stated that those provisions would
"destroy the co-operation that has been built between the Council's Social Services and the Hospital, which has seen the number of cases of delayed discharge dramatically reduced in the past 12 months."
646
The £100 penalty will be yet another blow.
I say again to the Minister that the local authority corresponded with the Office for National Statistics and the census figures showed that the number of vacant houses did not tally with the council's council tax returns. The figure for vacant houses was not accurate in respect of, for example, the Palace hotel, which looks after many homeless people and asylum seekers.
The Government have been very unfair to Southend borough council, which has done a splendid job in looking after local residents. It has coped with the increasing demands made on it, but it is faced with a crisis, whereby it will have to introduce a high council tax, cut services and staff and increase charges for off-street parking and crematorium and cemetery fees. This financial settlement will not only produce a huge council tax, but have a detrimental effect on Southend residents' quality of life. It is a very raw deal, and at the very least I ask the Minister to have a conversation with his right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire, so that he reconsiders refusing on three occasions to meet a delegation from Southend borough council.
10.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Phil Hope): I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on securing a debate on the provisional local government settlement for Southend in the coming financial year. The overall settlement is, of course, an issue of great interest to local authorities at the moment. We are considering the comments received during consultation on the proposals, which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire announced on 19 November, augmented for some authorities in the pre-Budget report by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Consultation closed last Friday, and we expect to announce the final allocations around the end of the month.
On the point about meetings, the hon. Gentleman will know that we are in the second year of a three-year settlement, and Ministers do not meet individual local authorities during the second year and this part of the consultation period. However, we are meeting representatives of bodies such as the Local Government Association that are putting the kind of points to us that he is making this evening.
I am still very confused, however, about the tenor of the hon. Gentleman's contribution. It is one example—we have many of them—where Conservative Members call for increased spending on state services. The hon. Gentleman does not want to increase the council tax, so he must want central Government taxation to increase to pay for that. I find that confusing because the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) recently published his series of "I believe" statements. They have been criticised as meaningless platitudes because they contain no policy detail, but we know what at least one of them might mean in practice. Of course, I am referring to his belief that people should be big and that the state should be small. We know what that means in practice: under the last four years of the previous Conservative Administration, there was a 7 per

647
cent. real-terms cut in support for local councils, such as Southend. If the Conservatives were ever to regain office, it is their stated aim to cut public spending by £80 billion. Local government would clearly be one of the biggest losers in that financial cull.
If belief in a small state—local or national—translated into practice involves a cut in local government funding, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would come here tonight to plead for less money for his council, not more, to be entirely consistent with Conservative philosophy. However, given that that is not the case, let me move on to the points that he is making. He made a very angry point at the start about the unfairness of the situation, so I want to spend a little time describing the settlement overall and how we have reached this position.
The main element of support to local government—revenue support grant and redistributed business rates—is set to rise by £2.4 billion or 5.5 per cent. next year, which is more than double the present rate of inflation. Special grants distributed outside the main finance system will rise by a further £1.3 billion or 11.7 per cent. That gives a total increase in grant to local authorities next year of some 7.1 per cent. By any standard, that is a massive increase in investment. It brings the total increase in support to local authorities since Labour took office to 30 per cent. in real terms. This is the clearest possible demonstration of our commitment to local government and the importance that we attach to the services that local government provides to local communities.
For individual local authorities, this year's settlement is largely shaped by the review of formulae that we conducted before the 2003–04 settlement. One of the key outcomes of the review—I stress this point to the hon. Gentleman and to the council whose case he is making—was a change in the way that the top-up for higher staffing costs operates. In the old system, the area cost adjustment was set for crude concentric circles around London, but he and I know that wage and recruitment costs vary much more widely than that. Wages in west London are much higher than the rest of outer London. The M4 corridor in Berkshire, Wiltshire and Avon previously received no top-up, nor did areas outside the south-east such as Cheshire and the old West Midlands county, although all have significantly higher costs than average.
The new area cost adjustment addresses these anomalies by considering wage levels for each county separately. In taking account of higher costs more accurately, some areas inevitably lost out in relative terms. Wage levels to the east of London are noticeably lower than neighbouring areas and, consequently, the authorities concerned receive smaller top-ups than previously.
To turn specifically to the settlement for Southend, the Government recognise, of course, that any move from the old unfair system to the new fairer formula will require a period of transition. In recognition of this, Southend, like some other authorities, directly benefits significantly from our floors and ceilings system, which gives a minimum increase in grant to each authority. The floor for all authorities was set above inflation for the first time last year, 2003–04, and, with the additional
648
£340 million announced in the pre-Budget report, we have been able to repeat this level of protection for 2004–05. The updated provisional settlement gives Southend a like-for-like increase in formula grant of 4.4 per cent.—a real-terms increase of almost 2 per cent. This follows increases in the seven years of this Government, ranging from 3.9 per cent. to, in one year, a 7.5 per cent. increase in grant to Southend borough council. These figures mean that Southend has received a real-terms increase every single year. That is in marked contrast to the decisions of the previous Administration who, we know, produced year after year of cuts for local authorities amounting to an actual cut of 7 per cent. in the last four years of the Conservative Government.
In addition to the 4.4 per cent. like-for-like grant increase, Southend has also benefited from the range of additional special grants that we are providing to local authorities, including up to £1.4 million of extra help for schools and more than £600,000 of the new money that we announced for social services specifically to deal with services for children.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to passporting to schools. Local government services are part funded by central Government and part funded through council tax. Schools are no exception. Although we have expressed the new guarantee for schools funding arithmetically in terms of the passporting target, it is misleading to suggest that increases for schools are fully funded while other services see no increase. In fact, Southend, like other councils, has other sources of income that can be spent on its services. They include the reasonable low single-figures increase in council tax that we expect, other special grants—I have mentioned some already; others are to be announced—efficiency savings through things such as better procurement and new powers in the Local Government Act 2003 to borrow and to levy charges and fees. So it should not be implied from this that, in the passporting of funds to schools, Southend has been discriminated against in some way.
Last year, 12 authorities were asked to increase spending on their schools by more than their increase in formula grant. This year, with even more importance attached to full passporting to schools, the Government decided that it would not be reasonable to ask authorities to do this. When we announced the consultation in November, 13 authorities, including Southend, received additional grant to ensure that they received at least as large an increase in formula grant as their target for passporting to schools. Southend is in this position because we have provided a high floor for the schools formula spending share of 5 per cent. per pupil. Combined with an increase in pupil numbers, the authority is being asked to increase its schools budget by more than 6 per cent.
The extra money from the pre-Budget report that the hon. Gentleman mentioned increased the raw grant entitlement of all 150 upper-tier authorities, but we had to make a choice on the floors and ceilings to determine how much they should actually receive. We concluded that it would be appropriate to increase the floor to 4 per cent. and the ceiling to 7.5 per cent. His authority received extra money in November and, in the pre-Budget report, we made a change and more money went in, which was reflected in the ceilings and floors. However, we kept the guarantee—[Interruption.]The

649
hon. Gentleman does not understand that because of the formula grant, we are ensuring that the money can be passported.
We are keeping the guarantee that every authority should have a grant increase that is sufficient to meet its passporting target. Even when we recalculated the settlement with the extra £340 million, Southend and five other authorities required extra top-up to enable passporting. That amount was relatively small in some authorities and relatively large in others. Southend is still receiving more funding in cash terms than the formulae say that it should.
There are arguments that Southend and other authorities should receive more money than the minimum necessary to passport to schools—I am apparently hearing that from the hon. Gentleman. However, there are even stronger arguments that the extra money that we have provided through the new guarantee is fair. Indeed, we have received representations from several authorities saying that the level of protection that we have provided is far too generous—other hon. Members have made that point fiercely.
With that in mind, I turn to the council tax and the possibility of capping. I must say that I was completely surprised to hear that the hon. Gentleman is still in favour of the poll tax, or the community charge. There cannot be too many of his like left on the Opposition Benches. I think that that was probably the single reason why the then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher lost her job, and it is interesting that the current Leader of the Opposition was the Minister responsible for putting the poll tax legislation through Parliament—I do not suppose that he likes to be reminded of that too often. Still, I have no doubt that he is grateful for his supporters such as the hon. Gentleman reminding the House of that track record.
Let us consider the council tax and the possibility of capping. Last year, Southend borough council made the choice to increase its budget by 7 per cent., which was much more than double the rate of inflation. [Interruption.] As a consequence, its council tax increased by 15.7 per cent., which was substantially above the average and no less than six times the rate of inflation. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that we made it quite clear that such an increase was completely unacceptable. Hon. Members should be in no doubt
650
that we want to see percentage increases restrained to low single figures next year, and we are prepared to use our capping powers—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I should not have to intervene in an Adjournment debate, but there has been far too much sedentary comment on both sides of the House. The Minister should be heard.
Phil Hope: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We are prepared to use our capping powers on any authority, including police and fire authorities, if that proves necessary. We will decide on the criteria in the light of authorities' budget decisions.
I share the hon. Gentleman's worries about unreasonably high council tax increases, so we are taking steps to help individual council tax payers directly. Unfortunately, not all those who are entitled to help with their council tax bills are claiming that benefit. Local authorities have a statutory duty to promote the take-up of council tax benefit, and we are actively pursuing new ways of supporting them.
The Department for Work and Pensions is planning to launch a campaign to raise awareness of council tax benefit and encourage take-up by potential beneficiaries. We especially want to ensure that the 1.9 million pensioners who will gain more council tax benefit on the introduction of pension credit will get the extra help to which they are entitled. Furthermore, the DWP is revising and streamlining the process for claiming housing and council tax benefit and pension credit. We have also removed the restriction on people living in houses with high council tax bands from claiming council tax benefit at the full rate.
The hon. Gentleman made a point about the census. We have announced that we will do an amending report for 2003–04. We are allowed to make only one amending report for the financial year, which will take place within the statutory time scale allowed. That means that it must take place before the end of the 2004–05 financial year because we have only one chance—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at one minute to Eleven o'clock.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Asylum
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how much the Department spent on the delivery of the asylum process in the last financial year. [146672]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department for Constitutional Affairs' expenditure in the 2002–03 financial year for asylum and immigration was £277 million. This covers the costs incurred by the Immigration Appellate Authority and the Courts and, legal aid administered by the Legal Services Commission. Of this we estimate approximately £244 million was attributable to asylum and the remainder to non-asylum immigration work.

  Judicial Appointments
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many judicial appointments the Lord Chancellor made in November and December 2003; whom he appointed; and to which posts. [146962]

  Mr. Leslie
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor made, or recommended to Her Majesty and/or the Prime Minister, 162 judicial appointments during November and December 2003. A table detailing the names of those appointed, and the post they were appointed to, will be forwarded to my hon. Friend and a copy placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many Law Lords he has appointed since 12 June 2003. [146963]

  Mr. Leslie
  Since 12 June 2003, the Prime Minister has recommended, following advice from my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, the appointment of three Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. The Queen has approved the Prime Minister's recommendations and all three Lords of Appeal have been appointed.

  Judicial Review
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what has been the average time taken in the last year for an application for leave to move to judicial review to be determined. [146493]

  Mr. Leslie
  For the period 1 December 2002 to 30 November 2003 the average times taken to determine applications for permission to apply for judicial review from the date of issue of proceedings to the date of determination are as follows.
  490W
  For determination on the papers only:

  Civil matters—7.3 weeks1

  Criminal matters—6.3 weeks1

  Where the judge directs that he wishes to consider permission at an oral hearing:

  Civil matters—10 weeks1

  Criminal matters—5.2 weeks1

  Should the application subsequently be renewed following refusal on the papers, the average waiting times from receipt of the application for renewal to the date of determination is:

  Civil matters—6.4 weeks1

  Criminal matters—9.5 weeks1

  1The average figures include any time that cases may be stood out of the list pending determination of lead cases or other matters.

  Justice System (Costs)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the cost of the justice system was in(a) 1995, (b) 1997, (c) 1999, (d) 2001 and (e) 2003; and what the projected cost is in 2004–05. [146677]

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

  Written Constitution
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy on a written constitution. [146964]

  Mr. Leslie
  There are no plans to draft a written constitution for the United Kingdom.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Licensing Act
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will amend the Licensing Act 1964 to allow on-duty police officers to be served with refreshments; and if she will make a statement. [146572]

  Mr. Caborn
  Section 178(b) of the Licensing Act 1964 makes it an offence for the holder of a justices' licence to supply any liquor or refreshment, whether by way of gift or sale, to any constable on duty except by authority of a superior officer of the constable. Schedule 7 to the Licensing Act 2003, which received Royal Assent on 10 July 2003, will repeal the Licensing Act 1964 in its entirety, when it comes into force. Therefore, this provision of the 1964 Act will be repealed when the 2003 Act is fully in force.

  18-Plus Organisation
  Chris Bryant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what funding her Department and its executive agencies has provided to the 18-Plus organisation since 1997. [147352]

  Mr. Caborn
  There is no record of the Department or its executive agency providing any funding to the 18-plus organisation.

  Tourism
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what initiatives have been put in place by her Department to attract foreign visitors to UK attractions outside London. [147251]

  Mr. Caborn
  VisitBritain has a target in its Funding Agreement with my Department to promote a regional spread of overseas visitors to the UK. Major initiatives include a partnership campaign with the industry in the United States and, in Europe, a £4 million "City Breaks" campaign to promote short breaks in 19 cities across Britain. The Department also contributes funding (£250,000 p.a from 2002–06) to the Greater London Authority to help support its statutory duty of promoting London as a Gateway to the rest of the UK.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what initiatives have been put in place by her Department to increase domestic tourism visits in 2004. [147252]

  Mr. Caborn
  In November 2003, VisitBritain published its domestic marketing strategy. This is a three-year initiative designed to grow the value of the domestic market by encouraging the British to spend more on tourism throughout the English regions throughout the year. On 1 January 2004, VisitBritain launched its Enjoy England Spring Campaign which consists of a high profile television and press campaign and offers a holiday planner so that people can plan their domestic trips for the year. This will be followed up by a number of themed campaigns throughout the year and another major campaign in September. Information on the Enjoy England Spring Campaign can be found on the website: www.visitengland.com.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Bankruptcy
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners whether the Church Commissioners have made representations to the Government about changing the law to enable the courts to declare bankrupt a cathedral or other church or body that becomes unable to pay its debts. [146236]

  Sir Stuart Bell
  The Church Commissioners have made no representations to the Government about the present state of the relevant law.

  Bradford Cathedral
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners discussions the Church Commissioners have had about the financial position of Bradford cathedral and its failure to pay its debts to Past Forward and other small businesses for the work they were contracted to provide for the Life Force Exhibition; and what action the Church Commissioners intend to take to ensure that the Cathedral is able to pay to Past Forward the sum specified in the county court judgment issued against the cathedral. [146237]
  492W
  Sir Stuart Bell
  Legally and financially, cathedrals are independent bodies governed by the Cathedrals Measure passed by Parliament in 1999. The Commissioners have a very limited statutory role in relation to cathedrals and have no authority to compel Bradford Cathedral to reach a settlement, nor do they have power to provide funds to enable such a settlement.

  Nonetheless they are in contact with the Bradford Cathedral Chapter and recognise that efforts are being made to find a solution.

  McClean Review
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners if he will make a statement on the first report of the McClean Review of clergy terms of service to the Archbishops' Council. [146835]

  Sir Stuart Bell
  The group's first report was considered by the Archbishops Council on 9 December. It recommends that employment rights covered by section 23 of the Employment Relations Act should be conferred on the clergy through church legislation. The report will be debated in February by the General Synod, which will be invited to encourage comments on its recommendations from dioceses and other interested parties.

  A copy of the report will be sent to the DTI soon.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Animal By-products
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with the European Commission regarding further derogation from the Animal By-products Regulation 2003. [147001]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The United Kingdom, along with all member states, has recently submitted information on the application of the EU Animal By-products Regulation (1774/2002) to the European Commission, including difficulties faced by operators.

  In the light of these comments, the Commission may decide that certain provisions will need to be amended if it is clear that similar issues are occurring in several member states.

  We are also in discussion with the Commission regarding a number of supplementary proposals relating to the Animal By-products Regulation.

  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the statement of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, of 10 December 2003,Official Report, column 1173, whether the database of animal by-product premises will be available on her Department's website early this year. [147091]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are currently in the process of compiling the database of animal by-product premises with the intention of placing a list of approved premises
  493W
  on the Defra website. In the interim period this information can be obtained from local Defra animal health offices (who issue the approvals).

  Animal Protection
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research has been(a) undertaken and (b) commissioned by her Department on (i) illegal animal movements, (ii) illegal culling of wildlife and (iii) illegal hunting of protected species. [146567]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  It is not apparent from the question whether my colleague's interest relates to research into wild native species, exotic non-native species or agricultural animals. The answer below therefore reflects the wide range of activities that Defra undertakes.

  (i) Illegal animal movements

  The Animal Movement Licensing System (AMLS) highlights any reports of potentially illegal movements of cattle, sheep, goats and pigs so that local authority Trading Standards Officers can investigate them and take any necessary enforcement action.

  (ii) Illegal culling of wildlife

  The Department has not specifically undertaken or commissioned research into the illegal culling of wildlife. However, an assessment was made of the potential impact of this activity on certain birds of prey raptors as part of the UK Raptor Working Group, chaired by Defra (then DETR) and the JNCC, which reported in 2000.

  (iii) Illegal hunting

  The Department's responsibilities include protection of wildlife through regulation of trade in those endangered species listed on the Appendices to CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species). Research has been commissioned to contribute to an assessment of the impact of exploitation, especially by poaching and illegal trade, on the conservation status of the CITES listed musk deer in the far east of the Russian Federation and to inform future conservation management.

  Through the Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime (PAW) the Department supports the network of Police Wildlife Crime Officers, which investigate reports of illegal culling and other breaches of wildlife law.

  In addition to our support of the Police, the Wildlife Incident Investigation Scheme (WIiS) investigates suspicious wildlife deaths in relation to the misuse, abuse and approved use of pesticides. The scheme is run by the Pesticides Safety Directorate and funded by government and through a levy on the pesticides industry.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to introduce measures to make stunning compulsory before animals are ritually slaughtered; and what assessment she has made of the case for such measures. [147175]
  494W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are in the process of assessing all the recommendations in the Farm Animal Welfare Council's report on the welfare of red meat animals at slaughter, including the recommendation that all animals should be stunned prior to slaughter. We are planning to issue our draft response to the report for public consultation shortly.

  Bio-Yoghurt
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the implications for bio yoghurt of the EU directive on yoghurt classification; and what representations she has received on the new arrangements. [145731]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I assume that the hon. Member refers to the provision in Commission proposal COM(2003)14 which would amend Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2092/91 relating to standards for organic production. The proposal is intended to restrict the labelling of food with the term 'bio' to food which complies with the organic standards. The Explanatory Memoranda submitted on this proposal explain our view that the proposal to amend Article 2 is unnecessarily restrictive but note that it commands widespread support among other member states. Representations on the proposal have been received from a number of interests, most recently from the Dairy Industry Association Ltd., the British Retail Consortium and the Provision Trade Federation.

  I refer the hon. Member also to the reply given by the Secretary of State for Health on 19 November 2003, Official Report, column 916W, in relation to the separate discussions on possible EU legislation on the composition and labelling of yogurt.

  Chewing Gum
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the outcome of her Department's discussions with manufacturers and other interested parties about discarded chewing gum was; what changes to her policy on discarded chewing gum she has made and plans to make; and if she will make a statement. [146361]

  Alun Michael
  The group is considering a range of options for tackling the problem and intend to make recommendations to me shortly. I will then decide what steps should be taken and an announcement made. We are working closely with all interested parties through an action group which includes representatives of, Defra, the Department for Education and Skills, ENCAMS (formerly the Tidy Britain Group), chewing gum manufacturers, the Local Government Association and the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management, to progress effective and sustainable ways of tackling it.

  Environment Agency
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the Environment Agency's total expenditure has been since its formation; and how much has been spent on collecting and refining statistics on waste. [142594]
  495W
  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency's total expenditure since its formation has been £4,484.3 million.

  The Environment Agency has spent a estimated £5 million on collecting and refining waste statistics from its surveys on the production and management of waste from industry and commerce. This figure does not include waste statistics collected by the Agency as part of its regulatory duties.

  Fallen Stock
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of farmers have signed up to the proposed national subscription scheme for the disposal of fallen stock. [147000]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Good progress is being made in setting up the Scheme and farmers will be invited to subscribe to it shortly.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of the cost of the proposed national subscription scheme for the disposal of fallen stock. [147002]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Initial estimates of costs for the collection and disposal of all fallen stock in the UK, excluding those disposed of under TSE testing arrangements are likely to be around £28 million per year. However, the proposed National Fallen Stock Scheme will be voluntary, and as not all farmers will choose to subscribe, costs may be lower. Exact costs will depend on the rates of payments to collection and disposal operators which are currently being determined, and the volume of fallen stock which comes forward which is unknown.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress her Department has made on the national subscription scheme for the disposal of fallen stock. [147003]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Defra, in co-operation with devolved administrations, the individuals nominated as Directors of the National Fallen Stock Company and other key stakeholders are making good progress in setting up the Scheme. We hope to be able to make an announcement on the start date shortly.

  Fish Farming
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much food, by weight, is required to produce one kilo of marketable farmed salmon; how much raw marine resource, by weight, is required to make one kilo of fish food; where that food is sourced from; and what the content of that food is. [146712]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Defra does not collect data on feed usage and composition from enterprises engaged in fish farming in the UK. However, industry estimates range from 1.0 to 1.3 kg of feed needed to produce 1 kg of farmed salmon of a marketable size.

  We do not have information on the weight of the raw marine material used in feed for farmed fish. The quantity involved will vary depending on the proportion
  496W
  of fishmeal used in the different grades of dry fish feed produced for fish at various stages of growth. Salmon, like other farmed piscivorous species, are unlikely to consume, through feed, more natural marine resources than would their wild counterparts in the natural environment.
  The fish used for aquaculture feed are generally small, bony pelagic species sourced from non food grade fisheries, usually off the coasts of Peru and Chile, and in the North Atlantic, North Sea and Baltic Sea.

  We understand that feed for farmed salmon includes protein and oils derived from marine sources, limited amounts of vegetable proteins, small amounts of carbohydrates to aid pellet formation, minerals and vitamins.

  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much farmed salmon has been produced from the United Kingdom salmon farms over the last 10 years. [146713]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Production figures of UK Atlantic Salmon (tonnes) for the 10-year period up to 2002 (the latest year for which complete data are available) are as follows:

  Tonnes

  1993

  48,691

  1994

  64,066

  1995

  70,060

  1996

  83,121

  1997

  99,197

  1998

  110,784

  1999

  126,686

  2000

  128,959

  2001

  138,519

  2002

  145,609

  The figures include production primarily for human consumption, with some production for restocking.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many salmon farms operate in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) each region. [146970]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  There are 530 salmon farms operating in the UK as follows:

  Scotland: 504

  England: 18

  Wales: 7

  Northern Ireland: 1

  Fisheries
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the escape characteristic is that cod have for avoiding towed fishing gear. [146715]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  There is little published information on this in the scientific literature, but what there is, suggests that avoidance of fishing gear by cod is largely a visual response. The escape characteristic of cod will vary between day and night, with avoidance being in either a vertical or a horizontal direction. Generally, fishing gears are rigged to reduce such escapements. In the case of bottom gears, for example, the warps tend
  497W
  to reduce the horizontal movement of fish and the headline is forward of the foot rope to reduce vertical escapement.

  Fruit and Vegetable Consumption
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average fruit and vegetable consumption was in the(a) 50 most deprived and (b) 50 most affluent wards in England in the last year for which figures are available; and what the average for England was. [145986]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Data from the Expenditure and Food Survey on fruit and vegetable consumption is not available at ward level. However, fruit and vegetable consumption is available by income quintile for households in the United Kingdom for the 12 months from April 2001 to March 2002.

  Average consumption of fruit and vegetables in the 20 per cent. of households with the lowest incomes was 2,622g per person per week, compared to 3,651g per person per week in the 20 per cent. of households with the highest incomes.

  Average consumption of fruit and vegetables per person in the UK

  Household income

  Grams per person per week

  Lowest 20 per cent.

  Highest 20 per cent.

  Fruit and vegetables

  2,622

  3,651

  Fruit and vegetables1

  1,667

  2,947

  1Excluding potatoes

  GM Crops
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of whether the pesticide regimes which may be approved for the cultivation of Chardon LL maize will be more aggressive than the regime adopted in the farm scale evaluation trials. [146619]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 8 January 2004]: Under Directive 2001/18/EC, the management practices associated with the cultivation of GM crops must be assessed for their environmental impact. Consequently, my Department will seek advice from the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) as to whether the evidence provided by applicants about the specific management practices associated with a GM crop present an increased likelihood of adversely affecting the environment as compared to conventional practices associated with the cultivation of its non-GM counterpart. It would also be within the scope of Directive 2001/18/EC to include conditions to the consent that circumscribed the herbicide regime permitted, if this was felt to be appropriate. The farm scale evaluations provide important data with respect to current management practices, which will be invaluable in making this assessment.
  The data from the farm scale evaluation trials will, alongside other relevant data, also be considered as part of the scientific evaluation of any application for a commercial level of approval for the use of glufosinate ammonium on Chardon LL maize. Only if Ministers are satisfied, on the basis of the expert advice of the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides, that
  498W
  the particular use as proposed by the applicant on the draft product label is safe to people and the environment will approval be granted.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the Government's investigations have produced evidence to indicate that GM technology should now be released commercially. [146998]

  Mr. Morley
  Under Directive 2001/18/EC each application to release GM crops for commercial importation or cultivation is judged on a case-by-case basis according to the scientific evidence of any risks it may pose to human health or the environment. A person or company wishing to market such a GM crop must supply a detailed dossier of information including an environmental risk assessment on that GM crop. This information is open to scrutiny by all 15 member states and the European Commission, and an EU-wide public consultation must be held. In considering any application, the Government will consider all relevant evidence including results of its own investigations, for example including the Farm Scale Evaluations. No GM crop may be imported or grown commercially unless and until EU member states have agreed collectively under qualified majority procedures that it is safe. Once a GMO has the suitable consent, it can be imported and, if the consent conditions permit, cultivated within the EU, subject to other applicable legislation on seeds, pesticides and novel food and (animal) feed. No GM crop currently has all the required approvals for UK cultivation.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with insurance providers for non GM farmers who might be commercially damaged by GM contamination. [146999]

  Mr. Morley
  We have not had any discussions with insurance providers on this subject. The Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission has submitted a report to the Government on co-existence and liability issues in relation to GM crops and we are now considering this very carefully.

  Flooding
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures can be taken to alleviate the contamination from sewers and septic tanks which take place after groundwater flooding. [146227]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency works closely with local authorities, water companies and other groups to ensure that the effects of flooding are, as far as possible, minimised. Proper maintenance and siting of sewers and septic tanks, and monitoring of groundwater levels, can help reduce the risks, though during a flood event itself there is little that can practically be done apart from ensuring that any sewage pumping does not contribute to contamination, that the situation is properly monitored, and that those affected are informed of the situation and risks. The Department has been working with the Environment Agency and others to produce a groundwater protection code of practice
  499W
  on septic tanks and other non-mains sewerage systems and public consultation on a draft will commence shortly.

  IT Contracts
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 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 over-runs has been. [146192]

  Alun Michael
  The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs was established as a new Department in June 2001. At its inception, the Department novated existing MAFF framework contracts set up in 1999 with three major suppliers, Fujitsu, Sema UK Ltd. and Sungard Sherwood Systems Group Ltd. who have provided consultants to work with in-house staff for system development. No single system has cost of more than £20 million.

  The Rural Payments Agency signed a £35 million seven year contract with Accenture on 31 January 2003 for the development of systems to deliver payments to farmers and traders under the Common Agricultural Policy. The systems are still in the development phase and are scheduled to become operational during 2005, after which the contract allows for a period of support and maintenance.

  Nanotechnology
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much her Department is spending on the assessment of possible environmental impacts resulting from the release of nanotechnology products into the environment, with particular reference to ultra-fine particles. [147225]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department does not currently fund any research into assessment of the possible environmental impacts resulting from the release of specifically nanotechnology-based products into the environment. Most regulation to protect the environment is based on product or use categories and would therefore cover such a release, whether or not based on nanotechnology.

  However, in order to find out whether the technology raises new ethical, health and safety, environmental or social issues that have not already been covered by current regulations, last year the Department of Trade and Industry commissioned the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering to conduct an independent study to look at current and future developments in nanotechnology. We will examine carefully the conclusions of this study, expected in spring this year, to see whether there are any gaps that will need to be filled.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what(a) environmental and (b) toxicological data is held by her Department in respect of carbon nanotubes present in consumer goods. [147227]

  Mr. Morley
  No such data is held by the Department.
  500W
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the application of the precautionary principle to the decision on whether to impose a moratorium on the release into the environment of ultra-fine particles generated through nanotechnology processes. [147236]

  Mr. Morley
  Precautionary action must be based on objective assessments of the costs and benefits of action. The precautionary principle does not mean that we only permit activities if we are sure that serious harm will not arise, or there is proof that the benefits outweigh all possible risks. Most regulation to protect the environment is based on product or use categories and would therefore cover such a release, whether or not based on nanotechnology processes. We therefore do not consider that there is currently a case for a blanket moratorium on such releases, but we are keeping this under review, in particular via the independent study being carried out for the Department of Trade and Industry by the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering.

  Sewage Treatment Works
  Ann Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the progress of the consultation on Statutory Control of Odour and Other Nuisances from Sewage Treatment Works; and when the White paper will be published. [146322]

  Alun Michael
  The Government is awaiting the outcome of the House of Lords appeal case following a High Court ruling that odours from sewage treatment works can be dealt with as a statutory nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
  The Government will announce its response to the consultation and its approach following the House of Lords ruling and the outcome of the concurrent National Assembly of Wales consultation regarding sewage treatment works. There are no plans to issue a White paper on this matter.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum appeals determined by adjudicators in the second quarter of 2003 were dismissed; and how many of those whose appeals were dismissed have been removed from the UK. [140572]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 1 December 2003]: The available information requested is given in the following table and relates to appeals determined at the Immigration Appellate Authority. Some applicants whose appeal is dismissed may still be awaiting the outcome of further appeals—some appellants apply for

  501W
  leave to appeal to the Tribunal, and a proportion of these are granted leave followed by determinations by the Tribunal. Data on the number who have been removed after their appeals rights have been exhausted is only available at a disproportionate cost by examination of individual case files.

  Asylum appeals determined by adjudicators of the Immigration appellate authority, excluding dependants1,2

  Number of principal appellants

  appeals determined by adjudicators

  Allowed3

  Dismissed3

  withdrawn3

  Total determined4

  Total

  As percentage of total determined

  Total

  As percentage of total determined

  Total

  As percentage of total determined

  2002

  Q1

  14,010

  3,165

  23

  10,500

  75

  340

  2

  Q2

  15,525

  3,450

  22

  11,715

  75

  360

  2

  03

  18,260

  3,935

  22

  13,825

  76

  495

  3

  Q4

  16,615

  3,320

  20

  12,805

  77

  490

  3

  2002 total

  64,405

  13,875

  22

  48,845

  76

  1,685

  3

  2003

  01

  20,595

  3,480

  17

  16,445

  80

  670

  3

  Q2

  19,345

  4,060

  21

  14,875

  77

  415

  2

  Q3

  21,500

  4,270

  20

  16,805

  78

  420

  2

  Most recent three months

  July

  8,195

  1,655

  20

  6,375

  78

  165

  2

  August

  6,740

  1,320

  20

  5,275

  78

  145

  2

  September

  6,565

  1,295

  20

  5,155

  79

  110

  2

  1 Figures (other than percentages) rounded to the nearest five. Numbers might not add up due to rounding.

  2 Data for 2002 and 2003 are provisional.

  3 Based on data supplied from the Presenting Officers Unit within the Home Office.

  4 Based on information supplied by the Department for Constitutional Affairs. Determinations do not necessarily relate to appeals received in the same period.

  Cheadle Royal Hospital
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, before laying the statutory instrument relating to Cheadle Royal hospital which is being prepared in his Department, he will take steps to satisfy himself that all the income received by the charity has been applied to the properly authorised charitable purposes. [145328]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  [holding answer 5 January 2003]: I confirmed in my answer of 8 December 2003, Official Report, column 766W, that neither the Charity Commission nor the Greater Manchester police have found evidence of charitable income or assets being inappropriately used by the trustees of Cheadle Royal Hospital. A copy of the proposed new statutory instrument has been forwarded to the hon. Member and her comments requested by 9 January to support the progress of the instrument and enable the release of the funds of the charity to be used for the public benefit.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, before laying the statutory instrument relating to Cheadle Royal hospital which is being prepared in his Department, he will take steps to satisfy himself that all the assets of this charity have been sold or reassigned in accordance with charity law, and in particular with section 36(8) of the Charities Act 1993. [145773]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  I confirmed in my answer of 8 December 2003,Official Report, column 766W, that
  502W
  Information on asylum applications and other asylum statistics is published quarterly. The most recent publication covering the third quarter of 2003 is now available on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html

  neither the Charity Commission nor the Greater Manchester police have found evidence of charitable assets being inappropriately used by the trustees of Cheadle Royal hospital.

  Church of England
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what power the Charity Commission has to remove charitable status from Church of England bodies; and in what circumstances this would apply. [146235]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  This is a matter for the Charity Commission as the government department responsible for the regulation of charities in England and Wales. The Chief Charity Commissioner will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter dated 18 September from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to Mr. M. J. Sattler, transferred from the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the Office for National Statistics. [141583]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I replied to my right hon. Friend on 8 January 2004.

  Documents
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what definition he will use of the term reasonable explanation for failing to produce documents; and whether he intends to include a definition in relevant legislation. [143473]

  Beverley Hughes
  Ultimately it will be for the courts to define what constitutes a reasonable excuse for the purpose of the offence set out in clause 2 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of claimants etc) Bill. However, the offence explicitly rules out certain defences which are not to be considered as reasonable causes for no longer being in possession of a document. The defence does not include reference to other legislation.

  DORE Achievement Centres
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the results of the DORE achievement centres and dyslexia, dyspraxia and attention deficit treatment programme at Balsall Common School; and what plans he has to extend the programme to other schools. [146171]

  Margaret Hodge
  The dyslexia, dyspraxia and attention disorder treatment (DDAT) is one of a number of commercially available programmes designed to support children with specific learning difficulties. It is for parents, individual schools and local education authorities to decide whether a given technique has something to offer an individual child in the light of his or her particular needs. The Department has no plans to extend the programme to other schools but officials are meeting with representatives of the Dore achievement centres/DDAT to receive an update.

  Foreign Language Students (Fees)
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what circumstances foreign language students on(a) part-time and (b) full-time English language courses will be required to pay the proposed surcharge; and if he will make a statement. [143839]

  Beverley Hughes
  No decisions have yet been made about the level of the fees. The Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) is required to provide a range of fees for indicative purposes only. The upper limit of that range, £500, does not signify that the Government intends, as some newspapers suggested, to set fees at that level.
  The enabling power is the first stage of a two-stage process. The second part of the process is to undertake a full Regulatory Impact Assessment and wider consultation with key stakeholders. Following this consultation, decisions regarding fee levels, scope and timing of introduction can then be made taking these views fully into account.
  Any foreign language student, full or part-time, who currently pays a fee would be required to pay charges at whatever level they may be set.

  Senior Departmental Posts
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in meeting targets for the proportion of people with disabilities in senior posts in his Department. [146005]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on 8 January 2004,Official Report, column 488W.

  Youth Sales Restrictions
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to assist(a) tobacconists, (b) alcohol retailers and (c) publicans in determining the age of customers where restrictions on sales exist; and if he will make a statement. [145327]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Government's plans for a national identity cards scheme would provide a nationally accepted, useful and secure way of proving and determining age. Our current best cost estimates would fund the issuing of cards free to all 16-year-olds.

  In the shorter term, we have a strong interest in initiatives like the British Retail Consortium's Proof of Age Standards Scheme (PASS) which establishes a common standard for issuing the various proof of age cards that are available.

  Officials have worked closely with the British Retail Consortium to ensure the PASS scheme is as effective as possible. We have endorsed the scheme with ministerial involvement at its launch event last year and we continue to take steps to promote it such as including details of schemes that are PASS accredited on the Home Office website and providing a representative to sit on the PASS Board as an observer.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Child Care
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Minister for Women what(a) measures are in place and (b) measures are proposed to encourage fathers to share caring responsibilities for their children. [146260]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government is committed to helping provide parents with more opportunities than ever before to balance work and family life. In April 2003, we introduced new laws for working parents which cover fathers as well as mothers, including the right for parents of children aged under six or disabled children under 18 to request flexible working, adoption leave available to men and women, and the right to two weeks paid paternity leave for fathers. These new rights together with the existing rights to parental leave and time off for dependents recognise that men increasingly want to play a greater role in sharing caring responsibilities for their children, and gives them more choices for doing so.

  To encourage take-up of the new rights, the Government is running an ongoing awareness raising campaign which includes national newspaper adverts

  505W
  targeted specifically at fathers, and is working in partnership with a number of key stakeholders such as Fathers Direct. The Government's Work-Life balance campaign also encourages employers to adopt best practice and provide family-friendly working practices right across the workforce.

  The Children Act Sub-Committee, working to the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Board on Family Law, published a report "Making Contact Work", which amongst other issues highlights paternal responsibilities in caring for children. The Government is currently considering recommendations arising from the report, and plans to respond in full as soon as possible.

  The Family Support Grant has provided funding for a number of projects over the last five years to encourage fathers to become actively involved in the care of their children. These have included supporting the Active Dads programme, which assists a range of joint father/child activities rolled out through the Community Education Development Centre (now Contin You), and helping organisations such as Fathers Direct provide support and guidance to fathers and professionals working with them.

  Pension Provision
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Minister for Women what recent assessment has been made of women's pension provision. [146253]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I have been asked to reply.

  "Simplicity, Security and Choice: Working and Saving for Retirement" Cm 5677, dedicated a chapter to assessing the state of women's pension provision.

  The unique pension position of women is now being considered in all the projects that followed on from the Green Paper, such as the Informed Choice programme and the Extending Working Lives programme.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Nuclear Safety
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what access is provided to international nuclear safeguards inspectors to(a) military nuclear facilities and (b) military nuclear materials, under the provisions of the protocol additional to the agreement between the United Kingdom and the International Atomic Energy Agency for the application of safeguards in the United Kingdom in connection with the Treaty on The Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. [147022]

  Mr. Timms
  I have been asked to reply to this question since nuclear safeguards and implementation of the protocol additional to the UK/Euratom/IAEA Safeguards Agreement (Cm 4282), which is not yet in force, are the responsibility of my Department.

  Under the terms of the UK additional protocol the IAEA could request access to any location in the UK, including military nuclear facilities, where such access will contribute to increasing the IAEA's capability to detect undeclared nuclear material and activities in a non-nuclear weapon State. If necessary, access may be
  506W
  managed in accordance with Article 7 of the protocol. If access to the requested location cannot be granted, then every reasonable effort must be made to satisfy the IAEA's requirements, without delay, at adjacent locations or through other means. Neither the Safeguards Agreement nor the additional protocol apply to nuclear material required for national security reasons.

  Advantage West Midlands
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the recent decision by Advantage West Midlands not to support regeneration initiatives in Kington; and what estimate she has made of the effect on the amount of Objective 2 funding available. [142589]

  Jacqui Smith
  Advantage West Midlands has created Regeneration Zones to maximise local input on regeneration issues. The Regeneration Zone Board considers which projects to support within the resources available. The number of competing projects was such that a package of projects in Kington was not put forward to Advantage West Midlands for funding.

  Objective 2 funding is still available to these projects if Kington can find alternative match funding. I am assured that Advantage West Midlands and Government Office officials will work with Kington to seek alternative funding sources.

  Kington has received extra support from Advantage West Midlands. It was one of the first six market towns identified for support through the regional market towns programme, which began in 2001. The Programme in Kington allows for support from the Countryside Agency for a market towns support officer, and up to £300,000 from Advantage West Midlands for a package of projects developed by the local partnership, Kington Partnership. It is in the second year of a four year programme, and has drawn down £94, 607 from Advantage West Midlands to support 11 different projects to date.

  In addition to the market towns partnership, Advantage West Midlands has taken forward other project work directly in Kington with local partners. This includes the purchase of the old Kington Cottage Hospital and conversion into a Youth Hostel working with the Youth Hostel Association. Advantage West Midlands has also worked up plans with Herefordshire council to renovate the local Wesleyan Chapel for wider community use.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will reply to the letter to her dated 27 November 2003 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Angela Bottomley. [147619]

  Ms Hewitt
  I replied to my right hon. Friend on 9 January.

  Departmental Grants
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what funding her Department provides for
  507W
  (a) enterprise grants that are delivered to businesses in the regions by the Small Business Service. (b) the STEP programme, (c) the Faraday Partnership scheme and (d) the Manufacturing Advisory scheme in each year since inception of the scheme; what timescale applies to the funding in each case; and if she will make a statement on the extent to which businesses have benefited from each initiative. [145483]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Enterprise Grants

  Enterprise Grants are available to small and medium-sized businesses based in the Enterprise Grant Areas of England. Projects can involve expanding, modernising or restructuring an existing business, or setting up a new one. The maximum grant available is £75,000 on projects with up to £500,000 capital investment.

  The Enterprise Grant scheme was allocated a budget of £45 million between January 2000 and March 2003. The scheme deadline has been extended to March 2004 and in England, to date, small businesses have benefited from the scheme as follows:

  Expenditure (£)

  2000–01

  3,758,000

  2001–02

  10,200,000

  2002–03

  11,800,000

  The report covering the Regional Selective Assistance scheme, was undertaken in 2002 and found that businesses who benefited from Enterprise Grant were able to invest in projects that enabled them to increase their productivity and profitability and raise their skills levels, in areas of England that would not normally attract capital investment. By offering a grant of 15 per cent., we encourage private investment covering 85 per cent. of the capital investment costs, again in areas that traditionally struggle to gain investment finance.

  STEP

  For STEP (the Shell Technology Enterprise Programme), DTI has contributed approximately £0.68 million in 2003–04 and intends to fund STEP at about this level in 2004–05. An exit survey of businesses that participated in STEP in 2003 showed that:
  94 per cent. of host company managers stated that their STEP project would have a positive impact on their business's future performance;
  94 per cent. said their expectations had been met or exceeded (38 per cent. exceeded);
  89 per cent. of companies believe the benefits of their STEP project either equalled or exceeded the cost of taking part; and
  68 per cent. thought the project contributed to new processes or procedures within their business.

  Faraday Partnerships

  Faraday Partnerships aim to bring new products and processes, based on the UK science base, to the market more effectively. DTI and the Research Councils support 23 of the 24 Faraday Partnerships: the other is supported by the Scottish Executive and Defra.
  508W
  DTI spend on Faraday Partnerships to date has been:

  Expenditure (£)

  2000–01

  1,915,311

  2001–02

  3,351,631

  2002–03

  5,903,343

  2003–041

  2,904,500

  Total

  14,074,786

  1 First two quarters.

  Based on a five-year business plan, DTI offers each Faraday Partnership up to £400,000 per year for an initial three years. Subject to an interim review of the Partnership's progress, further support may he made available, but on a tapered basis.

  In 2002–03, Faraday Partnerships managed research portfolios totalling over £101 million; over 1,700 firms and nearly 400 University research teams are actively involved.

  Initial studies of the impact of the Faraday Partnerships on business have revealed the following generic effects:
  more focussed application of research results to new products in many fields;
  greater understanding of global competitiveness and winning new business;
  opportunities for SMEs to work with universities and large firms;
  improvements in manufacturing efficiency and marketing; and new networks linking businesses and researchers.

  (d) Manufacturing Advisory Service

  The Manufacturing Advisory Service (MAS) was launched in April 2002. The Department's funding commitment is £15 million over the period 2001–02 to 2004–05. as follows:

  £ million

  2001–02

  3

  2002–03

  5

  2003–04

  5

  2004–05

  2

  Of this sum, £13.75 million is provided to the English Regional Development Agencies and Welsh Development Agency as part-funding for the 10 Regional Centres for Manufacturing Excellence through which the service is delivered. The remainder of the Department's funding has supported the development of a complementary network of centres of expertise in manufacturing, a national website, and other essential central functions.

  The DTI sees the MAS as a real success as a major source of advice and support for manufacturers. Since it was launched, the MAS has handled over 15,000 inquiries. Over 4,500 manufacturing firms have benefited from MAS diagnostic consultations and over 1,000 have gone on to undertake in-depth projects to drive up their productivity and competitiveness. Latest figures show that the total added value to UK firms using the service is approaching £30 million.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what funding her Department has provided for(a) the Advanced Metals Technology Initiative, (b) the Technology Review grant scheme for small businesses,

  509W
  (c) the Innovation and Technology Programme for small businesses and (d) the Development Projects grant scheme in each year since inception of the scheme; what timescale applies to the funding in each case; and if she will make a statement on the timescale to which this funding applies and estimate the extent to which businesses have benefited from each initiative. [145488]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The following information is as follows:

  (a) Advanced Metals Technology Initiative

  The Advanced Metals Technology Initiative effectively started in September 2003. The DTI is providing funding of £2.5 million over a three year period, up to December 2006, to AMTI. As the project has only recently started it is too early to estimate the extent to which businesses have benefited.

  (b) and (d) Technology Reviews and Development Projects

  Technology Reviews were introduced in 1999 along with Technology Studies as additional elements of the Smart scheme. The funding provision for these elements was not shown separately from the rest of Smart but expenditure for these two elements was originally forecast to rise to some £2.8 million a year. These elements were withdrawn in May 2003 following the review of DTI business support.

  Development Project grants were another element of Smart and the funding provision and payments for this element were not shown separately. This element has now been subsumed within the new Grant for Research and Development which was introduced in June 2003 following the review of DTI business support.

  The overall funding provision for Smart and the benefits to small and medium sized businesses in terms of grant payment outturn were as follows:

  £ million

  Total Smart outturn

  Technology Reviews and Studies outturn

  1997–98

  25.8

  -

  1998–99

  24.9

  -

  1999–2000

  26.5

  2

  2000–01

  27.3

  154

  2001–02

  23.7

  462

  2002–03

  32.1

  711

  An evaluation of the Smart scheme as a whole was undertaken in 2001 (the Review element of Smart was briefly touched upon as it had only just been introduced). At the time the research was undertaken annual turnover in the economy was nearly £500 million higher than it would have been without the scheme. It is also estimated that annual exports were nearly £270 million higher and employment was more than 8,000 higher.

  Almost all award winners said that their projects had improved their technological knowledge/skills. Large majorities also reported quality improvements, increased investment in R and D/innovation, and an improved market position. Four in ten winners had sought further finance to enable them to introduce their products into the market. The majority of these thought that the Smart award had enabled them to do so. A copy
  510W
  of the full evaluation is available at www.dti.gov.uk/about/evaluation (c) Innovation and Technology Programme for small businesses

  The DTI does not operate a programme under this name, but does provide support for small businesses to develop innovation and technology, such as Grant for Research and Development and Grant for Investigating an Innovative Idea.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what funding has been provided by her Department to finance(a) the Manufacturing Advisory Service, (b) the Community Development Venture Fund and (c) the Supply Chain Groups initiative since the inception of each scheme; what timescale applies to the funding in each case; and if she will make a statement on the extent to which businesses have benefited from each initiative. [145511]

  Jacqui Smith
  The following information is as follows:

  (a) Manufacturing Advisory Service

  The Manufacturing Advisory Service was launched in April 2002. The Department's funding commitment is £15 million over the period 2001–02 to 2004–05, as follows:

  2001–02—£3 million

  2002–03—£5 million

  2003–04—£5 million

  2004–05—£2 million

  Of this sum, £13.75 million is provided to the English Regional Development Agencies and Welsh Development Agency as part-funding for the ten Regional Centres for Manufacturing Excellence through which the service is delivered. The remainder of the Department's funding has supported the development of a complementary network of centres of expertise in manufacturing, a national website, and other essential central functions.

  The MAS has been a real success as a major source of advice and support for manufacturers. Since it was launched, the MAS has handled over 15,000 inquiries. Over 4,500 manufacturing firms have benefited from MAS diagnostic consultations and over 1,000 have gone on to undertake in-depth projects to drive up their productivity and competitiveness. Latest figures show that the total added value to UK firms using the service is approaching £30 million.

  (b) Community Development Venture Fund

  The Community Development Venture Fund (CDVF), known as the Bridges Fund, was launched on 14 May 2002 and became fully operational after a fourth and final closing in September 2002.

  The Fund is a £40 million fund that was established to provide venture capital finance to viable SMEs with good growth potential in the 25 per cent. most disadvantaged wards in England. The Fund is made up of £20 million from institutional and private sector investors and £20 million from the Government to be invested alongside the private sector investors, through pound for pound matched funding. The Fund is not a Government "scheme": it is a commercially managed venture capital fund in which the Government is an investor alongside other leading private sector investors. The Fund has an investment period of up to nine years

  511W
  although Bridges Community Ventures Ltd, the Fund Manager, expects most of the fund to be invested by the end of year five.

  As at the end of December 2003, the Bridges Fund has invested over £5 million in nine SMEs with growth potential that are located in disadvantaged areas:

  £million

  Financial Year

  Drawn down from DTI

  2002–03

  2,175,000

  2003–04(as at 31.12.03)

  4,193,395

  (c) Supply Chain Group

  The Supply Chain Group was launched in April 2003. The DTI plans to spend £15 million over five years and so far has spent £446,372.

  The programme will benefit companies throughout the automotive supply chain by providing them with expert help to improve their business. Participants are invited by their industry customer, ensuring that help is targeted to the most significant suppliers. To date, 10 supply chain group projects involving 94 companies have been approved. These are long-term activities and hard data on the improvements achieved will be available towards the end of 2004. The initial feedback from participating companies has been encouraging.

  Esarda
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which United Kingdom organisations are members of the European Safeguards Research and Development Association (Esarda); and whether public resources are provided to support participation in Esarda. [147030]

  Nigel Griffiths
  UK organisations with current membership of the European Safeguards Research and Development Association (Esarda) are BNFL and UKAEA. The DTI provides funding for participation by UKAEA in the Esarda Scientific Council and Coordination Board on behalf of the DTI-sponsored UK Safeguards Support Programme to the IAEA. In addition, officials from DTI participate in some meetings of Esarda Committees and specialist Working Groups. Further information on the activities of Esarda can be found on its website: www.jrc.org/esarda/ or www.jrc.cec.eu.int/esarda/

  Fireworks
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress is being made in implementing measures to tackle nuisance caused by fireworks. [146944]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  On 22 December the Fireworks Regulations 2003 came into force which made it an offence for those persons under the age of 18 years to possess fireworks in a public place and for persons of any age to possess Category 4 professional fireworks, the largest most powerful type that are used for public displays.
  512W
  We are currently drafting a regulation to prohibit the supply of air bombs to the public and have begun preliminary consultations on implementing the rest of the Fireworks Act and will publish draft regulations early this year.

  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether new measures to tackle firework nuisance will provide specific protection for vulnerable premises, with particular reference to stables. [146945]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Fireworks Act 2003 does not contain provisions relating directly to the protection of premises. However, the Act does provide that firework regulations may prohibit public displays unless certain conditions are met.

  Further, the Act also provides for compulsory training courses for operators of public firework displays which could lessen the chances of a firework straying to cause damage to nearby buildings such as a stable.

  Money Laundering
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many financial services companies in the FTSE All-Share list of companies have reported suspected cases of money laundering in each of the last five years; and what estimate has been made of the sums involved. [146149]

  Caroline Flint
  I have been asked to reply.

  Companies suspecting money laundering activity are under various legal obligations to report this to the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS). The information provided is used by law enforcement agencies in fighting crime, including through locating the proceeds of crime with a view to confiscation.

  NCIS does not break down reports by reference to whether the reporting institution is listed on the FTSE All-Share list. Since 1999 303 companies in the banking, insurance/life assurance, and securities/investment sectors made reports. The number of reports received was:

  Banks

  Insurance/Assurance

  Securities Finance Investment

  Totals

  1999

  7,223

  522

  108

  7,853

  2000

  10,802

  579

  160

  11,541

  2001

  18,776

  795

  215

  19,786

  2002

  37,041

  1,011

  262

  38,314

  2003

  63,997

  1,109

  274

  65,380

  Total

  137,839

  4,016

  1,019

  142,874

  The growth in reporting is believed to result mainly from the impact of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, an increased regulatory focus on money laundering (in particular relating to the Financial Services Authority's statutory responsibilities), and greater awareness of the issues in the light of the tragic events of 11 September 2001.

  NCIS does not keep estimates of the sums involved in the reports received, as although some reports will relate to a specific financial transaction or transactions others

  513W
  will not involve transactions at all. To illustrate the scale of the sums involved in money laundering, the most recent estimate of the amount laundered annually in the UK is £25 billion.

  Post Office
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will direct the management of the Post Office to extend the consultation period for those Post Office branch closures which it has put out for consultation over the Christmas period by at least two weeks. [146317]

  Mr. Timms
  Post Office Ltd. carries out its formal public consultation in accordance with the Code of Practice agreed with Postwatch. With the move from individual proposals to area closure proposals by parliamentary constitutency last autumn, the consultation period was extended from four to six weeks.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much has been made available in each year since 2001–02 to the devolved regions to support post office branches in deprived areas; and how much has been made available for future years. [144804]

  Mr. Timms
  The funding arrangements and allocations to support post office branches in deprived areas of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are the responsibility of the Devolved Administrations. I understand that, in December 2002, the Scottish Parliament allocated £2 million for its programme to support post office branches in deprived areas of Scotland.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the six-week public consultation period for closure proposals under the urban network reinvention programme includes(a) public holidays, (b) Saturdays and (c) Sundays. [147272]

  Mr. Timms
  I understand from Post Office Ltd. that the six-week consultation period for Post Office closures includes public holidays, Saturdays and Sundays.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many responses were received to the consultation on the proposed closure of Stenhouse Cross Post Office; of these, how many(a) supported and (13) opposed the closure; and when she expects a final decision to be taken on the closure. [144823]

  Mr. Timms
  Proposals put out to consultation for, and subsequent decisions on, post office closures under the urban network reinvention programme are an operational matter for Post Office Ltd. and I have asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Rural Employment
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on employment prospects in rural areas with particular reference to(a) environmental management and (b) waste control. [146568]

  Mr. Timms
  There are considerable employment opportunities across rural areas in the UK as a result both of improvements in land and water management (which cover organic food production, agri-environment 514W
  schemes, national parks and nature protection projects etc.) and more innovative approaches to waste management and treatment (e.g. farm waste-to-energy plants). Furthermore, the role of eco-tourism in stimulating rural jobs, especially from farm diversification, should not be underestimated. However, quantifying these opportunities is challenging and there is only limited evidence available.

  Rural Community Enterprises
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on help available to community enterprises operating in rural areas. [146488]

  Nigel Griffiths
  As 'Social enterprise: a strategy for success' published in July 2002 made clear, social and community enterprises have a major role to play in meeting the needs of rural communities. The recently published Progress report (on implementation of the strategy) includes many measures to support the promotion and development of rural social enterprises. The Business Link network works closely with specialist rural business support organisations and Co-operative Development Agencies.

  In addition, DEFRA and the Home Office Active Community Unit recently announced they will provide £10 million over 2004–05 and 2005–06 to support community capacity building and voluntary and community sector infrastructure in rural areas.

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions her Department has held with representatives of the shipping industry in connection with the expansion of offshore wind farms. [141910]

  Mr. Timms
  In November 2002, DTI published a consultation document, "Future Offshore", which outlined a strategic approach to the arrangements for site leasing for offshore renewable development. Consultees associated with the shipping industry included the Chamber of Shipping, the Maritime and Coastguards Agency, the Port of London Authority, Associated British Ports, British Ports Association, International Tanker Owners, and the Society of Maritime Industries. Of these, replies were received from the Chamber of Shipping, the Maritime and Coastguards Agency and the Port of London Authority.

  Following this consultation, DTI commissioned a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the three strategic areas proposed for the sites of the second round of wind farms in the Future Offshore consultation. Over 400 organisations and individuals were consulted on the SEA. Organisations responding who represent the shipping industry included the Port of London Authority and Trinity Light House Services, the Royal Yachting Association and the Maritime and Coastguards Agency. A summary of the responses to the consultation and the DTI's response to them can be found on the SEA website at: http: //www.og.dti.gov.uk/ offshore-wind-sea/process/envrepresponse.htm

  Decisions on which sites will be granted leases for second round wind farms were announced on 18 December 2003 and took into account an assessment

  515W
  on impact on shipping at a strategic level. Having been offered a site lease, each developer is required to conduct an environmental impact assessment and associated consultations before development consent can be given.

TREASURY

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many residents in each constituency were in work at(a) June 1997 and (b) the most recent date for which information is available. [146745]

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

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. Brian Wilson, dated 12 January 2004:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about employment levels in Parliamentary Constituencies. I am replying in his absence. (146745)

  The Office for National Statistics publishes employment rates but not levels from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) for Parliamentary Constituencies. This information is available on a yearly basis, but not for calendar months. The latest available estimates are for the twelve month period ending February 2002. Estimates of employment rates by constituency can be obtained from the Nomis(r) database which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  As with any sample survey, estimates from the LFS are subject to sampling variability.

  Child Trust Funds
  John Barrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many children are expected to benefit from child trust funds in Scotland in each of the next five years, broken down by(a) local authority area and (b) parliamentary constituency. [144822]

  Ruth Kelly
  All eligible children born since 1 September 2002 in families awarded child benefit will receive a child trust fund (CTF). Projected birth figures by local authority and parliamentary constituency are not available, although figures for actual births and numbers receiving child benefit are available in the Library of the House. Birth projections for the whole of Scotland, produced by the Government Actuary's Department, are as shown in the following table.

  Birth projection (000s)

  2003

  52

  2004

  52

  2005

  51

  2006

  51

  2007

  51

  Each of these children will be eligible for a child trust fund. Based on take-up of child benefit, it is estimated that virtually all children born will receive a CTF.

  The CTF is intended to encourage parents and children to develop the savings habit. It will ensure that every child, whatever their family background, will have access at the age of 18 when they begin their adult life, to a stock of assets which they can invest in their future.
  516W
  It will also help children and their parents to understand the benefits of saving and investment and how to engage with financial institutions.

  Departmental Relocation
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment his Department has made of the benefits of re-location of staff to North Staffordshire; and if he will make a statement;[146866]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect of proposals to relocate Government jobs on the Department's ability to meet (a) departmental policy objectives and (b) departmental public service agreements; [146882]

  (3) what assessment his Department has made of the effect of possible relocation of staff in his Department to North Staffordshire on (a) job creation, (b) sustainable development, (c) the local economy and (d) tackling regional economic disparities; and if he will make a statement;[146895]

  (4) what plans he has to establish procedures for assessing the impact of possible re-location of staff in his Department to the regions; and if he will make a statement. [146926]

  Mr. Boateng
  Sir Michael Lyon's Independent Review of Public Sector Relocation was established by the Chancellor and Deputy Prime Minister to examine the scope for relocating public sector activity, to improve the delivery and efficiency of public services and to benefit regional economies.

  Sir Michael's review will be informed by research from King Sturge on suitable alternative locations, and Experian Business Strategies on lessons from previous relocations, and the economic impact of relocation. Summaries of this research will be available shortly on the Treasury website at www.hm-treasury.gov.uk

  Sir Michael's final report will be published in March 2004 and individual Departments will develop relocation proposals in light of his findings.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [145924]

  Ruth Kelly
  4.8 per cent. of staff employed by HM Treasury are over 55 years of age. A total of three (1 per cent.) staff recruited in the last 12 months (1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003) are over 55 years of age.

  Euro
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in how many speeches during 2003 he declared support for the Government's policy on the euro. [147295]

  Ruth Kelly
  In June 2003 the Prime Minister and the Chancellor both said that the Government will campaign on a pro-Europe platform to make the case for Europe and the principled case for the euro.
  517W
  Since then the Chancellor and other Ministers, have held a variety of meetings to discuss the euro in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Independent Financial Advisers
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many independent financial advisers were regulated by the Financial Services Authority in each of the last three years. [147038]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Financial Services Authority informs me that these figures are not available.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received regarding the impact on independent financial advisers of compliance with Financial Services Authority requirements. [147039]

  Ruth Kelly
  Ministers and civil servants receive representations from a wide variety of members of the financial services community. As with previous Administrations, it is not this Government's practice to provide details of all such representations.

  Under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, the Financial Services Authority is obliged to consult publicly on all new regulatory requirements. The FSA has specific mechanisms in place to seek the views of consumers and practitioners, including small firms.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact on(a) independent financial advisers and (b) the financial services sector of the costs of complying with Financial Services Authority requirements. [147040]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 requires the Financial Services Authority (FSA) to

  Project title

  Country

  Value (£)

  Legal Adviser within Coalition Provisional Authority South (CPAS)

  Iraq

  72,925

  Economic Support to Coalition Provisional Authority South (CPAS)

  Iraq

  98,655

  Secondment of Negotiations Support Staff to the Office of Prime Minister

  West Bank and Gaza

  75,800

  ITD-DFID Staff Training1

  Global (Non Project Specific)

  288,435

  Support to the Office of the Prime Minister and to the Cabinet Office

  West Bank and Gaza

  100,400

  Economic Development within 1st Military Division HQ Basra

  Iraq

  57,910

  Economic Support within 1st Military Division HQ Basra

  Iraq

  55,510

  International Lawyer within 1st Military Division HQ Basra

  Iraq

  63,110

  Andhra Pradesh Economic Restructuring Programme—Public Enterprise Reforms, Phase II

  India

  416,435

  Asia Trade Consultancy

  United Kingdom

  44,200

  Support Services for Public Enterprise Restructuring in South Africa

  South Africa, Republic of

  6,363,435

  Support for capacity-building in the Ministry of Finance and Central Bank

  Afghanistan

  1,229,655

  Trade Training for DFID Staff—Bangkok1

  United Kingdom

  32,328

  Support to Water Sector Regulation by PURC-Ghana

  Ghana

  1,079,100

  Trade Training for DFID Staff

  United Kingdom

  20,075

  Consultants for Standards, Technical Regulatory Barriers Programme

  Global (Non Project Specific)

  43,990

  Pilot Training and Capacity Building in International Waterhouse Law

  Kyrgyz Republic

  131,174

  Trade Enabling Agreement

  Global (Non Project Specific)

  1–

  Communications Film for Department of Disinvestment

  India

  89,500

  PSRC: Water Privatisation and Regulation Study Tour

  Tanzania

  54,924

  Support for Public Sector Undertaking Reforms and Social Safety Net in Madhya Pradesh

  India

  80,000

  Conference on Disinvestment

  India

  70,000

  Russia Trade Policy Project

  Russia

  1,199,041

  Lead Adviser to Parastatal Sector Reform Commission (PSRC)

  Tanzania

  195,690

  Seminar on Export Credits and Developing Countries

  United Kingdom

  101,035

  Rehabilitation of Cyclone Damaged Lift Irrigation Points in Orissa

  India

  622,736

  Initial Support to the Budgetary Processes of the Government of Macedonia

  Macedonia

  13,630

  Medium Term Programme of Capacity Building for PURC

  Ghana

  636,900

  UK-Ireland Privatisation and Regulation Study Tour

  Tanzania

  11,145

  518W
  carry out and publish for consultation cost-benefit analysis of new regulatory requirements. The Treasury does not conduct any additional assessment.

  Public Sector Investment
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what definition he used for the term public sector investment in table B24 on page 237 of the pre-Budget report. [146347]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer the Prime Minister gave him on 5 January 2004,Official Report, column 58W.

  School Funding
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the Cabinet Office's strategy and delivery units on changes in the way money may be allocated to schools. [147147]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Chancellor has regular contact with the strategy and delivery units on a wide range of issues, including schools.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Adam Smith Institute
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what work his Department has commissioned from the Adam Smith Institute in the last five years; and how much each of these projects cost. [146938]

  Hilary Benn
  The information requested is in the following table. This does not include any lower value contracts, details of which are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. All these contracts have been awarded in line with standard procurement practice.
  519W

  Project title

  Country

  Value (£)

  Additional Support to the Privatisation Board

  Bangladesh

  106,241

  Assistance to the Palestinian Negotiations Affairs Department

  West Bank and Gaza

  1,482,776

  Technical Assistance for Public Enterprise Reform in Orissa

  India

  2,061,365

  Privatisation Agency Support Project Consultancy

  Zimbabwe

  308,470

  Privatisation Project Phase 3 and 4 Managing Consultant

  Guyana

  770,027

  PR Unit Support for Parastatal Sector Reform Commission (PSRC)

  Tanzania

  272,975

  1The two contracts indicated were issued under this enabling agreement.

  Cotton
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions he has had since 17 September 2003 with representatives of the United States Administration on the impact of US subsidies to domestic cotton producers on cotton producers in West Africa. [146587]

  Hilary Benn
  EU and US cotton subsidies are among the clearest examples of trade distortion by OECD countries. Failure to address them satisfactorily was a key issue behind the collapse of WTO talks at Cancun. Four West African countries (with support from European donors including the UK) presented an initiative at the WTO calling for the end to developed country subsidies, and compensatory support to developing country cotton producers who are negatively affected by them in the meantime. US subsidies are the largest, but recent research supported by my Department and the EU Directorate General for Development shows EU subsidies also affect West Africa because of market structures.

  Reform of the EU's own support to its cotton sector is currently being discussed in Brussels. While these discussions continue, DFID has not had direct contacts with the US administration on the issue. The UK is pressing for more significant reform of the EU cotton regime than is currently proposed, both as an end in itself and also to help push the US to address their subsidies.

  Departmental Relocation
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many staff in his Department work in(a) the West Midlands and (b) North Staffordshire. [146916]

  Hilary Benn
  None.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what plans he has to establish procedures for assessing the impact of possible relocation of staff in his Department to the regions;and if he will make a statement;[146931]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect of proposals to relocate Government jobs on the Department's ability to meet (a) departmental policy objectives and (b) departmental public service agreements; [146887]

  (3) what assessment his Department has made of the effect of possible relocation of staff in his Department to North Staffordshire on (a) job creation, (b) sustainable development, (c) the local economy and (d) tackling regional economic disparities; and if he will make a statement;[146901]
  520W
  (4) what assessment his Department has made of the benefits of re-location of staff to North Staffordshire; and if he will make a statement. [146871]

  Hilary Benn
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which the Chief Secretary to the Treasury gave on 12 January 2004,Official Report, column 516W.

  General Affairs and External Relations Council
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many meetings of the General Affairs and External Relations Council of the EU have taken place since his appointment; and how many he has attended. [147343]

  Hilary Benn
  Since my appointment as Secretary of State for International Development on 5 October 2003, there have been three meetings of the General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) of the EU and one Informal Meeting of EU Development Ministers on 24 October.

  Two GAERCs each year have a 'development' session. I attended the last such session in November 2003. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development, represented the UK at the Italian Presidency's Informal Meeting in October, while I was in Madrid attending the Iraq Donor's Conference. For your information, I have listed the dates of all the GAERCs that have taken place since my appointment:

  13–14 October 2003

  17–18 November 2003

  8–9 December 2003.

  Leak Inquiries
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will list occasions on which his Department has conducted an inquiry into alleged leaks from members of staff since 1997; and if he will list the occasions on which the names of those persons accused of leaking information from his Department have been made public(a) by the Government and (b) by way of another source. [146941]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  Since 1997 DFID has investigated four suspected leaks. In line with exemptions 1(a) and 7(b) set out in Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, it has been the practice of successive Governments not to comment on the outcome of such inquiries in order to safeguard security and investigative arrangements.

  Recruitment Advertising
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much has been spent on recruitment advertisements in the press, broken down by publication, by(a) his Department, (b) quangos under the Department and (c) non-departmental Government bodies under the Department (i) in the last year and (ii) since 1997. [145804]

  Hilary Benn
  The Department for International Development expenditure on recruitment advertising in the calendar years 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 is shown in table A as follows:

  DFID advertises in specialist and professional publications according to the specific nature and requirements of each vacancy. This includes placement

  Table B—Publications where main DFID advertising expenditure has been incurred—per calendar year—from calendar year 2000 onwards

  Publication

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Total

  British Medical Journal

  13,104

  11,291

  1,805

  4,566

  30,766

  Computer Weekly

  Nil

  14,779

  4,239

  22,372

  41,390

  Daily Mail

  Nil

  14,430

  Nil

  8,540

  22,970

  Economist/Economist website

  324,850

  572,793

  471,561

  381,141

  1,750,345

  Ethnic Media Group titles

  3,308

  7,365

  10,998

  49,326

  70,997

  Evening Standard

  Nil

  18,109

  Nil

  11,762

  29,871

  Far East Economic Review

  Nil

  19,661

  9,038

  Nil

  28,699

  Financial Times

  18,954

  35,326

  Nil

  1,974

  56,254

  Guardian and website and Weekly

  196,426

  234,577

  149,499

  171,274

  751,776

  Herald and Sunday Herald

  8,818

  25,983

  9,729

  32,453

  76,983

  New Civil Engineer

  13,187

  12,810

  30,634

  4,344

  60,975

  New Scientist

  9,954

  45,753

  29,504

  27,448

  112,659

  Planning

  3,175

  7,892

  14,368

  Nil

  25,435

  Police Review

  18,054

  Nil

  3,102

  14,448

  35,604

  The Teacher

  Nil

  Nil

  1 1,289

  5,357

  16,646

  Telegraph (Daily and Sunday)

  21,501

  47,498

  1 1,074

  24,127

  104,200

  Times and Sunday Times

  31,941

  Nil

  44,179

  17,978

  94,098

  Times Educ Supp and Higher Educ Supp

  16,902

  14,130

  26,541

  12,304

  69,877

  Total by year

  680,174

  1,082,397

  827,560

  789,414

  3,379,545

  South Africa
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions the British Government have had with the South African Government regarding proposals for land reform in South Africa; and what advice his Government have given President Mbeki and his Government on this matter. [146841]

  Hilary Benn
  The Department for International Development and the High Commission in Pretoria are in regular touch with South Africa's Department for Land Affairs. Land reform is a vital element in the transformation of South Africa after the apartheid era, and potentially offers important economic opportunities for poor people. We welcome the Government of South Africa's commitment to a transparent, accountable and legal process of land reform—through restitution to previous owners of land acquired under pre-1994 legislation, through supporting purchase of agricultural land by previously disadvantaged groups, and through reform of communal land tenure arrangements in the former homelands. To support the Government of South 522W
  of adverts in overseas and developing country publications. DFID uses a wide range of publications and to list all the details would incur disproportionate cost. As a result, table B as follows indicates the main publications where we have incurred the largest expenditure.

  Figures for 1997, 1998, and 1999 are not available.

  Table A—Total DFID advertising expenditure per calendar year—from calendar year 2000 onwards

  Year

  (£)

  2000

  751,972.46

  2001

  1,208,190.72

  2002

  914,571.19

  2003

  871,246.31

  Total

  3,745,980.68

  Africa in increasing the pace of land reform, DFID committed £2 million in 2002 to provide technical support to the Department of Land Affairs, and to support a public consultation process on the Communal Land Rights Bill.

  Sustainable Development
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how his Department's bid to the forthcoming government spending round will contribute to the United Kingdom's objectives on sustainable development. [146838]

  Hilary Benn
  Poverty reduction and sustainable development are closely inter-linked since development will only be sustainable if it tackles problems of global poverty alongside pressures on the environment. DFID policies and programmes therefore support sustainable economic and social development at both global and country levels. Resources provided as a result of the forthcoming Spending Review will enable us to continue these efforts. We will be developing plans for the next Spending Review period over the coming months.

  Trade Barriers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the effect of reductions in barriers to non-agricultural goods on(a) developed countries and (b) developing countries. [146614]

  Hilary Benn
  The WTO negotiations on non-agricultural market access have yet to reach agreement with several countries having submitted proposals. Although this makes assessment of the implications for developed and developing countries difficult, most studies concur that reductions in tariffs could bring significant benefits. A recent UNCTAD1 study estimated that a reduction in barriers to non-agricultural goods will lead to an increase in global welfare of between $20 billion and $40 billion. A substantial majority of these gains are expected to go to developing countries, with welfare in developed countries remaining virtually unchanged.

  1Laird, S., Cordoba, F., Vanzetti, D. (2003) Market Access Proposals for Non-Agricultural Products. UNCTAD.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

  Legislation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Leader o f the House if he will list for each session since 2000–01 the(a) Acts of Parliament and parts thereof and (b) Statutory Instruments enacted by requirements of legislation of the European Community and Union; and how many regulations passed by EU institutions have applied without further enactment in each year since 2000. [145460]

  Mr. Hain
  This information is not collated and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of progress in destroying poppy production in Afghanistan by use of strimmers; and if he will make a statement. [147165]

  Mr. Rammell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Mike O'Brien, gave him on 16 December 2003,Official Report, columns 1426–27.

  Responsibility for eradication programmes in Afghanistan resides with the Afghan government. We are not aware of the use of strimmers as an eradication method in Afghanistan. Methods which have proved effective in the past include the use of sticks, ploughs and tractors.

  Chechnya
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what role he envisages for the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe in Chechnya. [146685]
  524W
  Mr. MacShane
  We believe that the OSCE could have a useful role to play in support of a political process in Chechnya. We regret that since the closure of the OSCE Assistance Group to Chechnya at the end of 2002, it has been impossible for the OSCE Chairmanship in Office to agree with the Russian Federation on specific OSCE projects for Chechnya, with or without an OSCE presence on the ground in the region. If President Kadyrov showed clearly that he was prepared to work for reconciliation, to promote a genuinely open political process and to uphold human rights, the OSCE would be ready to assist, though any activities would have to take full account of the security situation in the region.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he(a) has made and (b) intends to make to the Russian authorities to persuade them (i) to cease compelling displaced Chechens to return to the war zone, (ii) to allow humanitarian organisations access to camps containing displaced Chechens, (iii) to avoid closing such camps without providing alternative accommodation and (iv) to issue invitations to UN specialist agencies to visit Chechnya. [146687]

  Mr. Rammell
  We have bilaterally and with the EU repeatedly reminded the Russian Government of their obligations under the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees, stressing that all movements of internally displaced persons (IDPs) must be strictly voluntary. We have also stated that the dismantling of shelters, or the suspension of food, water and energy supplies, in our view constitutes a forced return.

  The EU most recently raised concerns over IDPs during the recent Chechen Presidential elections. The EU, with UK support, issued a statement raising concerns over the conduct of the elections. The statement asked the Russian Government to provide assurances that the return of IDPs in Ingushetia and throughout the North Caucasus would be strictly voluntary. After the elections had taken place the EU issued a further statement, which the UK also supported. That statement expressed concern over the condition of refugees in neighbouring Ingushetia, repeating the EU's rejection of any attempts of involuntary return of refugees to Chechnya. It also called on the Russian authorities to renew their efforts to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid to those in need.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Russian authorities in respect of(a) the mass bombardment of civilians in Chechnya, (b) the desirability of negotiations to bring the conflict to an end and (c) the applicability of internationally accepted standards of conduct to this conflict. [146709]

  Mr. Rammell
  We regularly raise with the Russian Government UK concerns about the situation in Chechnya, in particular human rights. We have stressed that there is a need for an open political process, and that Russian security operations in Chechnya must uphold the rule of law and respect human rights. We most recently did so following the Chechen Presidential elections, when I issued a press statement on 16 October 2003 calling for newly elected President Kadyrov to
  525W
  work for reconciliation, to promote a genuinely open political process and to uphold human rights. A copy of the press statement is available on the Foreign and Commonwealth website: www.fco.gov.uk//policy/news/ press-releases. The UK also supported EU statements issued on 26 September and 9 October 2003. copies of which are available on the Council of the Europe Union website address: http://register.consilium.eu.int.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to support the arraignment before an international criminal court of individuals suspected of war crimes in Chechnya. [146710]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Russian Federation is not a State Party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and Chechnya is currently therefore outside its jurisdiction. The UK has not called for an international tribunal on Chechnya as we believe such a move would be counter-productive. We continue to press Russia on the situation in Chechnya both bilaterally and multilaterally through the EU. UN and Council of Europe.

  Colombia
  Mr. Luke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the Government is taking to ensure that Colombia fulfils its commitment to implement UN recommendations on human rights. [146747]

  Mr. Rammell
  A Working Group of representatives of governments which attended the London Meeting on International Support for Colombia has been set up in Bogota to monitor progress of commitments made on all sides, including UN recommendations. The Working Group is evaluating how we can work with the Colombian Government to ensure quicker progress on the implementation of the UN's recommendations. We will continue to impress upon the Colombian Government the importance we attach to the protection of human rights and of taking full account of the UN's own assessment of progress on its recommendations.

  Egypt
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Government has made to the Egyptian Government since 26 December 2003 regarding Mr. Magiid Nawaz. [147228]

  Mr. Rammell
  Maajid Nawaz is one of three British men currently detained in Egypt.

  Ministers and officials have made several representations to the Egyptian authorities about this case since the men were first detained in April 2002. The verdict was expected on 25 December 2003, but the case has been adjourned until 25 March. My noble Friend the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean wrote to the Egyptian Foreign Minister on 7 January to express her concern at the length of time it is taking to complete this case.

  EU Enlargement
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the(a) levels of unemployment and (b) living standards in the nations which will secure membership of the EU in May. [146654]

  Mr. MacShane
  In 2003, average unemployment in the 10 accession countries was 10.2 per cent., caused largely by the restructuring required for EU accession. It is expected that this figure will fall as the adjustments become embedded. Unemployment in the EU15 in 2003 remained unchanged at 8.0 per cent. The average GDP per capita in the 10 accession countries in 2002 (latest figures) was US$7,105, compared to US$24,689 in the EU15. While this demonstrates the current disparity between existing and new member states, the real GDP growth in accession countries over the last five years has been 18.9 per cent. (4.1 per cent. in 2003), compared with 10.1 per cent. in the EU 15 (0.8 per cent. in 2003).

  Combined with the political and economic reforms enacted for EU membership, this sustained growth should facilitate a gradual reduction in the current disparity, as has been the case in previous waves of enlargement. (All figures are from the IMF).

  EU Expulsions
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what mechanism the European Union has to expel a member state. [146711]

  Mr. MacShane
  There is no mechanism in the EU's Treaties for the expulsion of a member state. There is however provision in Article 7 TEU for the suspension of a member state's voting rights, though its obligations under the Treaty would still continue to be binding.

  European Constitution
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what restrictions would be placed on the entitlement of EU member states to pursue national policies on(a) asylum, (b) visas and (c) conditions of entry and residence in the event of the proposed European Constitution being approved by member states. [146655]

  Mr. MacShane
  There is a strong case for cooperation between member states in asylum and immigration. In the event of member states approving the Constitutional Treaty, we will keep our existing optins. We will not participate in common measures where it is not in the UK's interest to do so.

  Georgia
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he proposes to hold discussions with the new government in Georgia. [146482]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Government look forward to working with the new leadership in Georgia. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wrote to Mr. Saakashvili on 5 January to congratulate him on his victory in the presidential elections and to offer the UK's support in helping him tackle the major challenges ahead.
  527W
  The UK Special Representative for the South Caucasus, Sir Brian Fall, will visit Georgia from 12–14 January for talks with the new Administration.

  Iraq
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Government's plans for British involvement in Iraq have changed following the capture of Saddam Hussein. [146221]

  Mr. Rammell
  Government policy on Iraq has not changed following the capture of Saddam Hussein. His capture should reassure Iraqis who have suffered under his rule and feared his return to power. We will continue with our aim of working with Iraqis towards the establishment of a democratically elected government for Iraq.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's policy is on where Saddam Hussein should be tried. [146222]

  Mr. Rammell
  We have made it clear that it is for the Iraqi people to decide how to bring to justice those responsible for crimes committed by the former regime. On 10 December 2003 the Governing Council announced the creation of an Iraqi Special Tribunal to fulfil such a task. However, it would be premature at this stage to speculate whether Saddam Hussein will face prosecution before the Tribunal.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment the Government has made of weapons imported into Iraq in 2003(a) prior to and (b) subsequent to the invasion by Coalition Forces; for what purpose this was done and to whom they were supplied; whether such supply was in breach of the UN arms embargo; and if he will make a statement. [146432]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Government scrutinises all export licence applications and closely monitors the sale of weapons overseas from the UK. All UK exports are assessed against the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria on a case by case basis. In line with our obligations under United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 661 (6 August 1990) and its amendments, the UK did not sell or supply any weapons to Iraq prior to the onset of the conflict in 2003. Since the conflict ended the UK has rigorously enforced UNSCR 1483 (22 May 2003) which maintains the prohibition on the sale of all arms and related material, other than those required by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) to serve the purposes of UNSCR 1483 and other related resolutions.

  Since the introduction of UNSCR 1483 the Government have approved export licences for the sale and supply of weapons to the CPA and for the protection of CPA personnel and personnel contracted to assist with the reconstruction of Iraq. I made clear in a Written Statement to the House on 14 October 2003, Official Report, column 7WS, that we have licensed sub-machine guns and pistols for this purpose. The Government have also licensed smoke grenades and ammunition for the protection of CPA personnel, as well as ammunition for the CPA's work with the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior. A statement on both of these will be issued in January.
  528W
  We are unable to comment on the export control policy of other countries, although EU countries apply substantially the same criteria under the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports and are similarly bound by the UN arms embargo.

  Given the ongoing problems of security in Iraq, the Government are unable to assess the illegal flow of weapons across Iraq's borders since the end of the conflict in the spring of 2003. Such exports are in breach of the UN arms embargo, which was reaffirmed in UNSCR 1483.

  Israel
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the implications for the UK's responsibilities as(a) a permanent member of the UN Security Council and (b) a high contracting party to the Fourth Geneva Convention of the International Court of Justice's decision to open hearings into the legal consequences of the construction of the wall in the occupied Palestinian Territory. [146562]

  Mr. Rammell
  The International Court of Justice has been requested by the UN General Assembly (Resolution A/RES/ES-10/14) to give an Advisory Opinion on the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

  The International Court of Justice's decision to hold hearings on this issue has no direct implications for the UK's responsibilities as a High Contracting Party to the Fourth Geneva Convention or as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of(a) the amount of Palestinian land planned for appropriation by Israel under the map released by the Israeli Government on 23 October 2003 to construct the Separation Wall and (b) the amount of land that will be made inaccessible to its owners by the wall. [146564]

  Mr. Rammell
  According to the UN Secretary General's report of 24 November 2003, the Israeli Defence Force's map of 23 October predicts that 975 square km of land will lie between the Green Line and the fence, and 73 square km will take the form of closed areas.

  While recognising Israel's legitimate security concerns, the UK considers the route of the fence Israel is building in the Occupied Palestinian Territories to be unlawful. It threatens the prospects for a two-state solution and is an obstacle to peace. The Government continues to make representations to the Government of Israel to re-route the fence away from Palestinian land.

  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of(a) the amount of Palestinian land (i) appropriated and (ii) planned for appropriation by Israel in the area around Jerusalem to construct the

  529W
  Separation Wall and (b) the amount of land in that area already made inaccessible to its owners by the Wall. [146565]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UN Secretary General's report of 24 November 2003 sets out various statistics relating to Israel's building of a fence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The report contained no specific figures for the land appropriated in the Jerusalem area, on which estimates from other sources vary.

  While recognising Israel's legitimate security concerns, the UK considers the route of the fence Israel is building in the Occupied Palestinian Territories to be unlawful. It threatens the prospects for a two-state solution and is an obstacle to peace. The Government continues to urge the Government of Israel to re-route the fence away from Palestinian land.

  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how he intends to respond to the invitations from the International Court of Justice to member states to submit written evidence by 30 January to the hearings it is organising into the legal consequences of the construction of the wall in the occupied Palestinian Territory; and whether he will indicate by 13 February whether the UK intends to take part in those hearings. [146563]

  Mr. Rammell
  We are giving careful consideration to the UK's response to the International Court of Justice's invitation to member states to submit a written statement to the Court and/or to take part in the oral proceedings. I shall write to my hon. Friend to inform him of our decision in due course.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the United Kingdom recognises the right of Israel to possess and deploy nuclear weapons. [147028]

  Mr. Rammell
  As a non-signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Israel would not be in breach of any obligation under international law in the possession or deployment of nuclear weapons. However, the UK firmly believes that possession or

  Country

  From

  To

  Purpose of visit

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Nigeria

  5 September 2001

  6 September 2001

  Commonwealth Foreign Ministers Meeting

  Egypt

  27 September 2001

  27 September 2001

  Part of Middle-East tour

  Democratic Republic of Congo/Rwanda/

  21 January 2002

  23 January 2002

  Bilaterals

  Burundi/Uganda

  Egypt

  8 October 2002

  8 October 2002

  Part of Middle-East tour

  South Africa

  12 May 2003

  13 May 2003

  Bilateral Forum

  Nigeria

  2 December 2003

  4 December 2003

  Accompanying HM Queen on State Visit

  The then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Baroness Amos

  Nigeria

  25 July 2001

  27 July 2001

  Bilateral

  South Africa

  29 August 2001

  3 September 2001

  UN World Against Racism Conference

  Nigeria

  5 September 2001

  7 September 2001

  Commonwealth Foreign Minister's Meeting(Accompanied Foreign Secretary)

  Zimbabwe

  24 October 2001

  26 October 2001

  Bilateral

  Ethiopia

  5 December 2001

  8 December 2001

  G8 Meeting

  Kenya/Tanzania

  2 January 2002

  10 January 2002

  Bilateral

  Senegal/Nigeria

  6 February 2002

  10 February 2002

  Accompanying Prime Minister (Visit also included France)

  South Africa

  12 February 2002

  16 February 2002

  G8 Meeting

  Senegal

  10 April 2002

  13 April 2002

  Bilateral and G8 Meeting

  Ghana

  25 April 2002

  26 April 2002

  Bilateral

  Mozambique

  14 May 2002

  17 May 2002

  Bilateral

  Lesotho/South Africa

  29 July 2002

  3 August 2002

  Bilaterals

  Nigeria

  3 September 2002

  5 September 2002

  Bilateral

  530W
  deployment would be extremely destabilising for the region. We have consistently urged Israel to clarify its nuclear status by acceding to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapons state, and signing a full-scope safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Under the agreement with IAEA, Israel's nuclear facilities would be subject to regular inspection to detect and eliminate any diversion of nuclear materials for weapons production. The UK has consistently supported UN Resolutions calling for the establishment of a Middle East zone free of weapons of mass destruction. That zone would include Israel.

  Leak Inquiries
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list occasions on which his Department has conducted an inquiry into alleged leaks from members of staff since 1997; and if he will list the occasions on which the names of those persons accused of leaking information from his Department have been made public(a) by the Government and (b) by way of another source. [146943]

  Mr. Rammell
  Since 1997 the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has investigated 20 suspected leaks. In line with exemptions 1(a) and 7(b) of Part 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, it has been the practice of successive governments not to comment on the outcome of such inquiries in order to safeguard security and investigative arrangements.

  Ministerial Visits (Africa)
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which African countries(a) he and (b) other Ministers in his Department have visited since June 2001; and what the (i) dates and (ii) main purposes of the visits were. [146937]

  Mr. Mullin
  The following table shows visits to African countries made by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Foreign and Commonwealth Office ministers since 1 June 2001.
  531W

  Country

  From

  To

  Purpose of visit

  Mozambique

  7 November 2002

  8 November 2002

  EU/SADC Meeting

  Burkina Faso

  27November 2002

  29 November 2002

  EU/Africa Dialogue

  Angola/Ghana

  4 December 2002

  9 December 2002

  Bilateral (Angola) and G8 Meeting (Ghana)

  Senega]

  18 December 2002

  19 December 2002

  Bilateral

  Tanzania/Rwanda/Kenya

  27 January 2003

  31 January 2003

  Bilateral

  Cameroon/Angola/Guinea

  25 February 2003

  28 February 2003

  Bilaterals

  Cameroon/Angola/Guinea/Ghana

  11 March 2003

  12 March 2003

  Bilaterals

  South Africa

  29 March 2003

  1 April 2003

  Bilateral

  Botswana

  1 April 2003

  3 April 2003

  Bilateral

  South Africa

  4 April 2003

  6 April 2003

  Bilateral

  Mali

  14 April 2003

  15 April 2003

  G8 APR Meeting

  Minister of State right hon. Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

  Egypt

  17 January 2003

  23 January 2003

  Bilateral (Visit also included Saudi Arabia)

  Morocco/Tunisia

  14 September 2003

  18 September 2003

  The then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Mr. Ben Bradshaw

  Egypt

  18 July 2001

  25 July 2001

  Bilateral(Visit also included Israel, Syria,Jordan and Lebanon)

  Algeria/Morocco

  23 September 2001

  26 September 2001

  Bilateral

  Minister of State Mike O'Brien

  Libya

  6 August 2002

  8 August 2002

  Bilateral

  Egypt

  11 December 2002

  13 December 2002

  Bilateral,(Visit also included Qatar)

  Algeria

  19 May 2003

  21 May 2003

  Bilateral/Familiarisation

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Mr. Chris Mullin

  Ghana/Cote D'Ivoire/Sierra Leone

  22 July 2003

  25 July 2003

  Bilaterals/Familiarisation

  Kenya/South Africa

  29 October 2003

  5 November 2003

  Bilaterals/Familiarisation

  Nigeria

  3 December 2003

  8 December 2003

  Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting

  Eritrea/Djibouti/Ethiopia

  12 January 2004

  20 January 2004

  Bilaterals/Familiarisation

  North Korea
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make an appraisal of the threat posed by North Korea, with particular reference to its policy towards acquisition of nuclear weapons. [146483]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Government believe that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) has been pursuing two separate programmes for the production of fissile material, through the enrichment of uranium and the processing of plutonium. DPRK also has long-range missiles in service, and we believe it has the capacity to develop missiles capable of reaching the UK. We will continue to urge the Government of DPRK, bilaterally and in co-operation with international partners, to remove the threat thus posed to the international community by dismantling its nuclear programmes verifiably and irreversibly, and by continuing the moratorium on the flight-testing of long range missiles.

  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been held with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea regarding the elimination of its nuclear weapons programme [147144]

  Visitor

  From

  To

  Purpose of visit

  UK Ministers met

  Angola

  Foreign Minister Miranda

  24 March 2002

  27 March 2002

  Sponsored visit

  Foreign Secretary Baroness Amos

  Botswana

  President Mogae

  17 September 2001

  19 September 2001

  Africa meeting at Chequers

  Prime Minister, SoS International Development Baroness Amos

  532W
  Mr. Rammell
  The Government makes regular representations to the government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), through our Embassy in Pyongyang and through the DPRK Embassy in London, about its nuclear programmes. I also raised the issue with DPRK Vice Foreign Minister Choe Su Hon during his visit to London in April last year. We continue to express our concerns and to encourage DPRK to comply with its international obligations.

  Official Visits (Africa)
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which African(a) heads of state, (b) prime ministers and (c) foreign ministers have made official visits to the United Kingdom since June 2001; what the (i) dates and (ii) main purposes of the visits were; and which United Kingdom ministers met them. [1469391

  Mr. Mullin
  There have been a number of visits by leaders and ministers of African countries to the UK. Visits may be planned by the visitor's own government or by the Conference and Visits Group (CVG) of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  The following table shows all official visits organised by CVG since June 2001. Details of those visits organised by the visitor's own government are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  533W

  Visitor

  From

  To

  Propose of visit

  UK Ministers met

  Foreign Minister Merafhe

  17 September 2001

  19 September 2001

  Africa meeting at Chequers

  Prime Minister SoS International

  (accompanying President)

  Development Baroness Amos

  President Mogae

  8 June 2003

  11 June 2003

  Guest of Government Visit

  Prime Minister SoS International

  Development Foreign Secretary

  Foreign Minister Merafhe

  8 June 2003

  11 June 2003

  Guest of Government Visit

  Prime Minister SoS International

  (accompanying President)

  Development Foreign Secretary

  Central African Republic

  Prime Minister Ziguele

  1 September 2003

  7 September 2003

  Sponsored Visit

  Mr. Mullin

  Ethiopia

  Prime Minister Zenawi

  22 February 2003

  26 February 2003

  Guest of Government Visit

  Baroness Amos SoS International

  Development Prime Minister

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Foreign Secretary

  Foreign Minister Mesfin

  22 February 2003

  26 February 2003

  Guest of Government Visit

  Baroness Amos SoS International

  (accompanying Prime Minister)

  Development Prime Minister

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Foreign Secretary

  Prime Minister Zenawi

  13 July 2003

  14 July 2003

  Progressive Governance Summit

  Prime Minister

  Ghana

  President Kufuor

  15 September 2001

  21 September 2001

  Africa meeting at Chequers

  Prime Minister SoS International

  Development Baroness Amos

  Foreign Minister Gbeho

  15 September 2001

  21 September 2001

  Africa meeting at Chequers

  Prime Minister Sos International

  (accompanying President)

  Development Baroness Amos

  Foreign Minister Owusu-Agyemang

  28 November 2002

  30 November 2002

  Sponsored Visit

  Foreign Secretary Mr. Rammell

  Mazambique

  President Chissano

  18 September 2001

  19 September 2001

  Africa meeting at Chequers

  Prime Minister SoS International

  Development Baroness Amos

  Nigeria

  President Obasanjo

  17 September 2001

  18 September 2001

  Africa meeting at Chequers

  Prime Minister SoS International

  Development Baroness Amos

  Rwanda

  Foreign Minister Murigande

  11 May 2003

  14 May 2003

  Sponsored Visit

  SoS International Development

  SENEGAL

  President Wade

  17 September 2001

  18 September 2001

  Africa meeting at Chequers

  Prime Minister SoS International

  Development Baroness Amos

  Foreign Minister Gadio

  5 November 2001

  7 November 2001

  Sponsored Visit

  Foreign Secretary Baroness Amos

  South Africa

  President Mbeki

  11 June 2001

  15 June 2001

  State Visit

  Prime Minister

  Foreign Minister Dlamini-Zuma

  11 June 2001

  15 June 2001

  State Visit (Accompanying President)

  Prime Minister

  President Mbeki

  13 July 2003

  14 July 2003

  Progressive Governance Summit

  Prime Minster

  Tanzania

  President Mkapa

  16 September 2001

  20 September 2001

  Africa meeting at Chequers

  Prime Minister SoS International

  Development Baroness Amos

  Zambia

  Foreign Minister Mwansa

  15 November 2003

  20 November 2003

  Sponsored Visit

  Mr. Mullin

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Disclosure and Public Interest Immunity
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Solicitor-General what advice the Attorney-General plans to issue to deal with the issues raised in the European Court of Human Rights case of Edwards and Lewis. [146760]

  The Solicitor-General
  This matter is the subject of appeal. The Grand Chamber in Strasbourg has agreed to hear an appeal by the UK Government against the decision in the case of Edwards and Lewis.

  The House of Lords will be considering this judgment in the case of R v. H and C on 14–15 January 2004. The Attorney-General will be appearing on behalf of the Crown in that case.

  The Attorney-General has no plans to issue any guidance until the issues raised in the appeal of R v. H and C have been considered by the House of Lords.
  534W
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Solicitor-General (1) if the Attorney-General will advise that special counsel should be available where there are issues of disclosure and public interest immunity involved in applications to try someone without a jury because of fear of intimidation under section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003; [146779]

  (2) if the Attorney-General will advise that special counsel ought to be instructed in cases where there are issues of public interest immunity and disclosure in criminal trials. [146780]

  The Solicitor-General
  This issue falls to be considered by the House of Lords in the case of Rv. H and C. This appeal is to be heard on 14–15 January 2004. The Attorney-General will be representing the Crown in that case.

  The House of Lords are being asked to consider the Public Interest Immunity system in England and Wales and whether or not it is necessary to instruct special advocates.

DEFENCE

  Armed Forces Supplies
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to introduce a system to enable equipment and stocks to be tracked throughout the armed forces supply train. [141811]

  Mr. Ingram
  Since April 2002, the Defence Logistics Organisation, has taken a number of steps to improve both the ability to track assignments and to measure the performance of our resupply systems.

  In December 2002, the purchase of elements of the "Total Asset Visibility" system currently in service in the United States Department of Defense was approved, in order to enable interoperability with US forces. The system is known as "Total Asset Visibility (Minus)" (TAV (Minus)), and is a radio frequency identity system that enables remote and automated scanning of electronically tagged containers, pallets, and other consignments. It is linked to existing United Kingdom information systems.

  The contract for TAV (Minus) was let on 23 January 2003, and installation work began four days later. The first phase of this work was divided into two parts. The first elements of Phase 1 to support early sustainment activity were completed by 15 February. The remaining elements of Phase 1, to give more comprehensive detail of strategic Supply Chain activity into Theatre, were completed by 31 March. Phase 2 of the system, to support redeployment and recovery, was installed from the end of decisive operations on 1 May, and was completed by the end of July. TAV (Minus) technology has since been integrated with information systems used by the Royal Navy. TAV (Minus) has genuinely enhanced our consignment tracking capability and offers an opportunity for further exploitation.

  Armoured Vehicles
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost will be of bringing the Armoured Vehicle Fleet to the standard required to meet operational targets; and if he will make a statement. [144505]

  Mr. Ingram
  I am withholding the information requested under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Challenger 2 Tanks
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost was of(a) improved oil filters and fans, (b) oil health monitoring equipment and (c) extended side skirts used in the dust mitigation package for the Challenger II tanks deployed on operation Telic. [145645]

  Mr. Ingram
  The costs of the improved oil filters and fans, oil health monitoring equipment and extended side skirts used in the dust mitigation package for Challenger Its deployed on Operation Telic are listed in the table.
  536W

  Dust mitigation package

  £ million

  Improved air filters and fans

  5.2

  Oil health monitoring equipment

  0.039

  Extended side skirts and mud flaps

  2.5

  Departmental Secondments
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what factors underlay the policy of his Department on central monitoring of(a) outward secondments to private companies and (b) secondments to other governments; and if he will make a statement. [146826]

  Mr. Caplin
  Outward secondments to industry are subject to a formal application and selection process within MOD. Where an applicant is successful, a formal secondment agreement setting out the terms and conditions of the secondment is drawn up between MOD and the organisation concerned, covering aspects such as the duties to be undertaken, conduct, discipline, performance and development issues. Monitoring of performance and progress during the secondment is then undertaken by the relevant MOD interchange unit on a case by case basis as best fits the particular circumstances.

  Appointments to other governments and departments are treated as public sector employment and are therefore subject to normal career posting arrangements. They are arranged by the appropriate local HR managers, and are not included as part of the central interchange programme. Although such appointments are not centrally monitored or covered by a formal secondment contract the other arrangements are broadly similar.

  All MOD interchange activity is conducted in accordance with Cabinet Office guidelines which can be found at www.interchange.gov.uk

  Galileo Satellite
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations have been received regarding the Galileo satellite network; what the Government's response has been; and if he will make a statement. [146363]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Galileo Global Navigation Satellite System is a civil programme that falls under the European Union's Directorate-General for Energy and Transport. Negotiations on the project are continuing with European Union partners, the European Commission and the United States, including its interoperability with the US Global Positioning System. During these negotiations the Government have been in regular contact with organisations and individuals representing the companies involved in the development of satellite navigation systems and applications. The UK is committed to the commercial success of Galileo as a civil system that has the potential to offer many opportunities for new transport and other applications.

  Iraq
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how soon the relatives of Iraqi civilians killed following
  537W
  incidents involving the use of force by British military personnel since the end of the conflict were officially notified of the fatality. [141683]

  Mr. Ingram
  UK forces inform the International Committee of the Red Cross of all confirmed civilian fatalities of which they are aware have been caused, or allegedly caused, by UK forces. The ICRC then endeavours to inform the relatives as soon as practicable.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what rights of redress have been made available to the families of Iraqi civilians allegedly killed by British forces since the end of the conflict. [141684]

  Mr. Ingram
  Redress for Iraqi civilians who have allegedly been killed or injured by United Kingdom forces is covered by Section 6 of the Coalition Provisional Authority Order Number 17. This requires cases to be dealt with by the parent state of the person whose activities are alleged to have caused the loss, in accordance with the national laws of that parent state.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which units deployed on Operation Telic 1 are to return to Iraq under the current planned roulement. [144154]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following Army unit was deployed on Operation Telic 1, and has subsequently returned under the most recent Operation Telic roulement: 26 Regiment Royal Artillery.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what methods are being used to decontaminate Iraqi tanks and other military equipment disabled or destroyed by the use of depleted uranium munitions in the southern sector of Iraq under British military control. [147024]

  Mr. Ingram
  To date, all military vehicles known to have been hit by DU munitions within the southern sector of Iraq under British military control have been clearly marked and are pending further examination when the security situation allows. UK efforts so far have focused on the identification and demarcation of contaminated vehicles.

  Iraq Survey Group
  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British personnel are engaged in the Iraq Survey Group; and when he expects its next report to be published. [146579]

  Mr. Ingram
  On 7 January 2004, there were 55 United Kingdom civilian and military personnel attached to the Iraq Survey Group. There is no formal requirement on the ISG to report according to a particular timetable.

  Operation Rockingham
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the role and function is of the unit set up under Operation Rockingham; what its cost was in the last financial year; and if he will make a statement. [146708]

  Mr. Ingram
  Operation Rockingham was established in 1991 to provide support to UNSCOM inspections in Iraq. It has subsequently also supported UNMOVIC 538W
  inspections and currently supports the work of the Iraq Survey Group. In the last financial year (2002–03), the cost of the team was £78,723.53.

  Royal Fleet Auxiliary Oilers
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the periods in dry-dock of each Royal Fleet Auxiliary oiler in each year since 1997. [146505]

  Mr. Ingram
  The maintenance periods undertaken by Royal Fleet Auxiliary oilers in each year since 1997 that have included a period in dry dock are shown in the following table.

  Type of maintenance

  Ship

  Start date

  End date

  Routine docking

  Oakleaf

  2 June 1997

  22 August 1997

  Refit

  Bayleaf

  4 May 1998

  17 July 1998

  Refit

  Olna

  4 May 1998

  28 August 1998

  Refit

  Grey Rover

  15 June 1998

  27 November 1998

  Refit

  Orangeleaf

  18 January 1999

  26 March 1999

  Refit

  Black

  15 February 1999

  20 May 1999

  Rover

  Refit

  Brambleleaf

  19 July 1999

  24 September 1999

  Routine docking

  Olwen

  12 April 1999

  14 June 1999

  Routine docking

  Gold Rover

  20 March 2000

  26 May 2000

  Refit

  Oakleaf

  14 February 2000

  21 April 2000

  Routine docking

  Grey Rover

  18 June 2001

  20 August 2001

  Routine docking

  Orangeleaf

  27 August 2001

  26 October 2001

  Routine docking

  Black

  1 April 2002

  24 May 2002

  Rover

  Routine docking

  Brambleleaf

  29 April 2002

  28 June 2002

  Contractor support period

  Oakleaf

  26 August 2002

  22 September 2002

  Refit

  Gold Rover

  14 October 2002

  20 December 2002

  Routine docking

  Oakleaf

  7 April 2003

  30 May 2003

  Refit

  Bayleaf

  3 June 2003

  8 August 2003

  The time in dry dock is only ever a part of the overall maintenance period and details of the exact time each vessel spent in the dock are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. In addition to the routine maintenance shown in the table RFA Grey Rover was docked in 1997 to undertake an emergency repair.

  The two new tankers RFA Wave Knight and Wave Ruler have not been subject to docking periods since entering service.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) year of construction and (b) anticipated year of decommissioning of each oiler in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. [146506]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  RFA vessel

  Year of construction

  Present planned decommissioning year

  Grey Rover

  1970

  2007

  Gold Rover

  1974

  2009

  Black Rover

  1974

  2010

  Brambleleaf

  1976

  2009

  Bay leaf

  1982

  2010

  Orangeleaf

  1975

  2009

  Oakleaf

  1981

  2015

  Fort Rosalie

  1978

  2013

  Fort Austin

  1979

  2014

  Fort Victoria

  1993

  2019

  Fort George

  1993

  2019

  Wave Knight

  2000

  2028

  Wave Ruler

  2001

  2028

  539W
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to use ships taken up from trade as oilers in future expeditionary warfare. [146508]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence does not routinely plan to requisition oil tankers from trade. There may, however, be exceptional circumstances where we would wish to do so.

  Second World War Ordnance (Badnells Pit Landfill Site)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what records exist detailing the disposal of ordnance from the Second World War ammunition dump near Slough into the Badnells Pit landfill site near Maidenhead. [147021]

  Mr. Caplin
  MOD research has identified no official records that support claims of the dumping of ammunition in the Badnells Pit landfill site.

  The authorised methods of disposal for Service munitions from Service stocks, both during and after the Second World War, did not include dumping in landfill sites. The standard methods of disposal involved the use of sea dumping, burning or the demolition of the material by explosive means.

  Warships
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the due decommissioning dates are for each of the(a) Swiftsure class submarines and (b) batch 3 Type 22 frigates; and which of these dates have been brought forward during the past year. [146510]

  Mr. Ingram
  The current planned decommissioning dates for the Swiftsure class submarines and Type 22 Batch 3 frigates are as follows.

  HMS

  Year

  Swiftsure class submarines:

  Spartan

  2006

  Sovereign

  2006

  Superb

  2008

  Sceptre

  2010

  Type 22 Batch 3 frigates:

  Cornwall

  2015

  Cumberland

  2017

  Campbeltown

  2017

  Chatham

  2018

  The planned decommissioning date for HMS Chatham was brought forward from 2020. This is the only amendment to have been made within the last 12 months.

  Split North Port, Croatia
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence further to his letter of 30 November 2003 on Split North Port, Croatia, how much the rent payable for the Split North Port was during the relevant period; and how much the underpayment was. [145219]

  Mr. Ingram
  The lease between the Ministry of Defence and Split North Port (SNP) provided for payments of around $8.9 million. Within the $6.35 million settlement in 2001, was an overall figure of $5.5 million for several claims by SNP taken together, including underpayment 540W
  of rent, use of facilities and back interest. The claim for underpayment of rent arose from an Arrangement between NATO and the Croatian Government not the original lease.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Civil Service (Disabilities)
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in meeting targets for the proportion of people with disabilities in senior posts in his Department. [145998]

  Mr. Pearson
  3.5 per cent. of the senior civil servants employed in the Northern Ireland Office have declared a disability. The corresponding figure for the Northern Ireland Civil Service is 3 per cent.,The NIO is awaiting the detailed results of the Northern Ireland 2001 Census before setting a Departmental target for people with disabilities in the Senior Civil Service.
  There are a number of measures in place to improve the representation of disabled people at all levels in the NIO, including in senior posts:
  Since 1998 the NIO has run a bursary scheme for staff below SCS level with disabilities, where the recipient is provided with a fast-track development programme of training, mentor ing and work placements to enable them to compete at the senior grades:
  The Department has participated in the Cabinet Office 2003 Summer Placement Scheme for disabled graduates/undergraduates. The eight week placement, at fast stream level, provides the participant with high quality work experience to attract them to the opportunities of a future fast stream career in the Civil Service;
  Reasonable adjustment measures are provided to assist existing staff with disabilities to remain in work; and

  Work is carried out with schools and organisations for disabled people in Northern Ireland to increase their-awareness of the job opportunities available within the Civil Service.

  Dental Care
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects the examination of the future delivery of primary care dental services in Northern Ireland to commence; what form he expects the examination will take; and when he expects to be able to report the findings. [147382]

  Angela Smith
  The Chief Dental Officer is currently developing a new Oral Health Strategy, which will set the oral health agenda for the next 10 years. It will identify the oral health needs of the Northern Ireland population, determine desired outcomes and identify areas where oral health can link into the wider health agenda.

  It is hoped that work on the new Oral Health Strategy will be concluded by June 2004 and this will then allow the development of a strategy for the delivery of primary care dental services to commence. That strategy will also take account of recent reviews of the dental workforce and the community dental service and consider whether any of the new contractual arrangements, currently being developed in England, should be introduced here.

  541W
  The aim is to have the necessary legislation in place to introduce any changes from April 2006 or as soon as possible thereafter.

  Both strategies will be developed in consultation with service users, health and social services professionals, key stakeholders and relevant interest groups.

  Departmental Advertising
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the total expenditure on information campaigns and advertising for his Department was for 2002–03. [145725]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The total expenditure on information campaigns and advertising across the 11 Departments of the Northern Ireland administration during 2002–03 was £2,064,598.35 and the corresponding figure for Northern Ireland Office was £114,082.26.

  Fishing Industry
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what dates in the last five years the Minister with responsibility for Agriculture and Rural Affairs visited(a) Kilkeel, (b) Ardglass and (c) Portavogie to meet the fishing industry and its representatives. [144617]

  Mr. Pearson
  I visited Kilkeel, Ardglass and Portavogie Harbours on Sunday 2 February 2003. I also visited Kilkeel on 15 February 2003 and met with representatives from various parts of the fishing industry. I have also had subsequent meetings with the fishing unions leading up to the Fisheries Council in December 2003.

  Hospital Bed Shortages
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on bed shortages in Northern Ireland hospitals. [147195]

  Angela Smith
  Many of Northern Ireland's hospitals have come under considerable pressure in recent days, with large numbers of patients having to wait on trolleys for admission. In preparation for the pressure of winter, a significant range of additional services were put in place, including extra medical beds and enhanced facilities in primary care and community care services, which help to minimise the number of potential hospital admissions. An additional £7 million was allocated to support this extra service provision. Work is also well under way to increase overall hospital capacity and, over the past year, the number of available hospital beds has increased by over 70. A further 30 beds will be coming on stream later this year. To complement this expansion, an additional £6 million is being spent in the current year on providing extra community care services.

  IT Contracts
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list information technology contracts in his Department with a value of above £20 million in each of the last 10 years; what the 542W
  inception date for each system was; when it became fully functional; when it became fully debugged: and what the cost of over-runs has been. [146197]

  Mr. Pearson
  Only one contract of this size has been awarded within the Northern Ireland administration during the past 10 years.

  In May 1998 the then Training and Employment Agency—an Agency within the then Department of Economic Development signed a 10 year PFI contract with ICL (now Fujitsu Services) for the provision of all IT hardware, data communication networks, office productivity software and Internet access for the former Agency. Additionally, the contract required the provision of two systems namely the Client Management System (CMS) and Trainee Management System (TMS).

  Following the formation of the Northern Ireland Assembly and its constituent Departments the contract was extended to cover the increased number of staff in the newly formed Department of Higher and Further Education Training and Employment now the Department for Employment and Learning.

  The hardware and office productivity software became fully functional in November 1998 on schedule, CMS went live on schedule in March 1999 and TMS became functional on 25 March 2002 some three months behind schedule.

  There were no over-run costs and no major bugs needing remedial action.

  Learning Disabilities
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many pupils aged 16 and over with moderate learning disabilities are enrolled in Northern Ireland schools, broken down by(a) age, (b) school and (c) education and library board area. [144220]

  Jane Kennedy
  Information for the 2003–04 school year is not yet available. From the 2002–03 school census, the numbers of pupils with statements of special educational need who had moderate learning difficulties were as follows:

  Number of pupils with MLD

  (a) Age at 1 July 2002

  16

  30

  17

  12

  Total

  42

  (b) School name

  Ashfield boys' high school

  1

  Ashfield girls' high school

  1

  Ballymoney high school

  1

  Banbridge high school

  1

  Beechlawn special school

  3

  Belmont house special school

  1

  City of Armagh high school

  6

  Clounagh junior high school

  1

  Craigavon senior high school

  1

  Donaghadee high school

  1

  Fleming Fulton special school

  6

  Forthill college

  1

  Lakewood special school

  1

  Limegrove special school

  4

  Longstone special school

  1

  Maghera high school

  1

  Mitchell house special school

  1

  543W

  Number of pupils with MLD

  Monkstown community school

  1

  Orangefield high school

  2

  St. Columbanus's college

  1

  St. Eugene's high school

  1

  St. Genevieve's high school

  1

  St. Louise's comprehensive

  1

  St. Patrick's high school, keady

  3

  Total

  42

  (c) Education and library board

  Belfast

  13

  Western

  6

  3

  8

  Southern

  12

  Total

  42

  Promoting Social Inclusion Working Group
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Promoting Social Inclusion Review Group was established; what its remit is; and what the(a) names and (b) positions of the members are.[144344]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Promoting Social Inclusion Working Group on homelessness was established on 7 May 2003. Its remit is to consider how Government Departments, Agencies and Non-Departmental Public Bodies can best work together to firstly, ensure that the risk of homelessness is reduced and secondly, that the full range of appropriate services is available to those who do find themselves homeless.

  The names and positions of its members are available, together with minutes of the group's meetings and other supporting papers, on the Department for Social Development's internet site, at the following address: http://www.dsdni.gov.uk/housing/Social-Inclusion.asp

  Saville Inquiry
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what the cost of the Saville Inquiry has been so far; and what payments have been made to each of the legal firms involved in the Inquiry; [[147046]

  (2) when he will reply to the Question from the hon. Member for East Londonderry, tabled on 10 December 2003, ref 144181, on the Saville Inquiry. [147046]

  Mr. Spellar
  I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for the delay in replying to his question. Some of the detailed information requested about payments to legal firms was not immediately available in the form requested. I shall write with the information shortly.

  On the figures available at the end of December 2003 the cost of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry has been £127 million. The Northern Ireland Office has spent £103.5 million. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence advises me that his Department has spent £23.5 million.

  Senior Civil Service
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many and what types of senior 544W
  civil service posts were filled over the past 12 months; and how many of such posts were filled by public advertisement. [145102]

  Mr. Pearson
  Information on appointments to the Northern Ireland senior civil service is as follows:

  Total posts

  Filled by public advertisements

  Grade 2A (Permanent Secretary)

  3

  2

  Grade 3 (Under Secretary)

  7

  1

  Grade 5 (Assistant Secretary)

  26

  23

  Shorts/Bombardier
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases have been submitted to the Labour Relations Agency for consideration by an industrial tribunal from workers at Shorts/Bombardier [146309]

  Jane Kennedy
  Employment-related complaints are submitted direct to the Office of the Industrial Tribunals and the Fair Employment Tribunal. All such applications are recorded in a public register and a copy of each is sent to the Labour Relations Agency, which seeks to promote a settlement of the complaint without need for a tribunal hearing.

  In the calendar year 2003, 361 applications were made to industrial tribunals by Shorts/Bombardier staff. A breakdown of these by ground of complaint is provided below (some included more than one ground).

  Number

  Unfair dismissal

  1353

  Redundancy payments

  3

  Breach of contract

  4

  Wages order

  3

  Disability

  17

  Sex discrimination

  9

  Trade union activities

  1

  1Includes "unfairly selected for redundancy" cases.

  There were also 20 applications to the Fair Employment Tribunal by Shorts/Bombardier staff over the period.

TRANSPORT

  A595
  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in the preparation and design of the Lillyhall to Parton improvement on the A595 in West Cumbria; when he expects the scheme to commence; and if he will make a statement. [146504]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Following the scheme's entry into the Government's Targeted Programme of Improvements in March 2001, a contract to design and build a new 5 km dual carriageway to bypass the communities between Parton and Lillyhall was awarded by the Highways Agency in December 2002. The Agency is currently developing the scheme in sufficient detail to enable the publication of draft orders under the
  545W
  Highways Act, later this year. The public and other interested parties will have an opportunity to comment on the draft proposals and, if necessary, a public inquiry will be held to hear representations. Subject to completion of the statutory processes and availability of funding, construction could start in 2006. The scheme is expected to cost around £25 million and will bring much needed relief to the local communities.

  Accident Rates
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the accident rates, including fatalities, for(a) single and (b) dual carriageway roads, including motorways. [146739]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In 2002, there were 42 accidents involving human injury or death per 100 million vehicle kilometres on single carriageway roads in Great Britain, and 38 per 100 million vehicle kilometres on dual carriageways.

  Air Safety (Banned Airlines)
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) which airlines are banned from the airspace of(a) the United Kingdom and (b) each EU country for which information is available; [147181]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the availability of information to passengers travelling to and from the United Kingdom relating to airlines which are banned from the airspace of (a) the United Kingdom, (b) other European countries and (c) other countries. [147182]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 8 January, given to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire)Official Report, column 429W.

  International civil aviation is governed by the Chicago Convention. Under the Convention the International Civil Aviation Organisation is responsible for establishing minimum safety standards. Contracting States are required to recognise the certificates of other Contracting States unless they have reason to believe that they have not been issued in accordance with ICAO standards. ICAO also audits Contracting States' aviation authorities to help identify and address any deficiencies in the implementation of international standards.

  Any airline from outside the EU or EEA which wishes to pick up or put down passengers or cargo in the UK requires a permit from the Secretary of State. It is a condition of the permit that the airline should be operated in accordance with international safety standards established by the International Civil Aviation Organisation.

  Permits may be refused, suspended or revoked if the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to do so, taking into account any relevant information available to him, including the outcome of inspections of aircraft carried out by the Civil Aviation Authority at the request of the Department. We have now placed on the Department's web site information about UK permit action as set out in my answer of 8 January, which includes the reasons for and duration of such action. This information will be updated as appropriate.
  546W
  We are not able to publish similar information with respect to permit action by other countries. Our inspections of foreign airlines are carried out in accordance with a procedure established under the European Civil Aviation Conference's Safety Assessment of Foreign Aircraft Programme, soon to be enshrined in European Community law. The results of inspections are entered on a central database and may be accessed by all ECAC States on the strict understanding that their use will be restricted to State organisations. The database includes information on some permit action by Member States, but what constitutes permit action varies from State to State. Some States include short restrictions on the use of an individual aircraft which may have been lifted before the report of the inspection reaches the database. The database cannot therefore be used to determine whether an airline currently has restrictions on its operations to an ECAC state. We are urgently considering with our ECAC colleagues how we can extend and refine the information on the database and whether it is possible for further information to be made public.

  Approved Driving Instructors
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reason the Pizza, Pasta and Italian Food Association was consulted by the Driving Standards Agency regarding proposed changes to Approved Driving Instructor qualifications; and if he will make a statement. [146455]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Driving Standards Agency issued its consultation paper in April 2003 to a wide range of organisations including national and local approved driving instructor associations, other driver and rider training groups, road safety officers, motoring organisations and other interested parties.

  Among the proposals, the paper invited comments on increasing the theory test fee for all learner drivers and riders. This was considered of particular interest to, for example, organisations representing trainers and employers of motorcycle and moped riders. The paper was therefore sent to the Motorcycle Retail and Rider Training Associations and to the Despatch Association. A copy was also sent to the Pizza, Pasta and Italian Food Association whose members employ large numbers of moped riders for home delivery services, some of whom only hold provisional licences and could therefore be affected by the proposed fee increase.

  Consulting representative organisations is a more effective way of reaching the individuals than trying to contact them individually and is in line with guidance in the Cabinet Office "Code of Practice on Written Consultation".

  Asylum Seekers
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what requirements there are for asylum seekers to apply for a UK or international driving licence before driving on British roads. [146548]

  Mr Jamieson
  The requirements in relation to application for a driving licence in the United Kingdom are the same for asylum seekers as for everyone else. In order to be able to drive here all individuals must have the relevant driving entitlement.
  547W
  Drivers who are resident in the United Kingdom and who hold a valid european Community/European Economic Area (EC/EEA) licence are entitled to drive until the expiry of the licence or until the driver becomes subject to British renewal at the age of 70.

  Those who hold a non-EC/EEA driving licence or an international driving permit issued in another country may drive in the United Kingdom for the first 12 months from the date they become resident. To ensure continuous driving entitlement, a United Kingdom driving licence must be obtained before this period elapses. Drivers who hold a licence from a country which has been designated for licence exchange purposes must exchange their driving licence for a United Kingdom one. In the case of a country which has no exchange agreement, drivers must obtain a United Kingdom provisional licence and pass both the theory and practical parts of the driving test before being granted a full driving licence.

  British Transport Police
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the annual cost of policing on the railways by the British Transport Police was in the latest year for which figures are available; and who meets the cost. [147034]

  Mr. McNulty
  The total expenditure of the British Transport Police during the financial year 2002–03 was £132.9 million. This was funded by the following contributions.

  Organisation

  £million

  Train Operating Companies

  61.4

  Network Rail

  35.1

  London Underground Limited

  31.2

  Ad hoc income

  4.2

  Interest received

  0.2

  Previous years surplus

  0.8

  Crash Barriers
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 15 December 2003,Official Report, column 704W, on crash barriers, how many lorries crossed the offside crash barriers of dual carriageways and motorways in each of the last five years. [146055]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information collected on road accidents does not identify whether a particular barrier was crossed.

  Cyclists
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what steps he is taking to ensure that(a) developers of new roads assess the needs of cyclists and (b) the findings of those assessments are incorporated at the planning stage; [146953]

  (2) what advice he has given the Planning Inspectorate about meeting the needs of cyclists. [146955]
  548W
  Mr. McNulty
  Local authorities are required to prepare a strategy for the provision and improvement of routes and facilities for cyclists as part of their Local Transport Plan.

  Advice on integrating planning and transport, including meeting the needs of cyclists, is set out in Planning Policy Guidance note 13. The Government's statements of planning policy are material considerations which must be taken into account, where relevant, in decisions on planning applications and appeals.

  Road Safety (Motorways)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the numbers of deaths and injuries on motorway hard shoulders as set out in the Transport Research Laboratory reports PR/TT/082/99 and PR/TT/069/98 (Table 7). [146520]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) report PR/TT/069/98 collates information on the usage and accidents on motorway hard shoulders. The TRL report PR/TT/082/99 analyses this data and uses it to establish patterns and frequencies of such accidents.

  Both of these reports provided material for the SURVIVE Working Group, a cross-industry group funded by vehicle recovery operators in which the Highways Agency has participated. The Group's recommendations were published in "The SURVIVE Report on Hard Shoulder and Roadside Safety" in April 2000. These recommendations and the TRL reports continue to inform the Highways Agency's policy, advice and future research aimed at increasing the safety of those who need to stop or work on the hard shoulders of motorways.

  Deep Vein Thrombosis
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will hold a public inquiry into the incidence, extent and causes of deep vein thrombosis amongst air travellers following the publication of research by the New Zealand Medical Research Institute; [146934]

  (2) what steps he is taking to protect British air travellers following the research by the New Zealand Medical Research Institute published in The Lancet on 19 December 2003; [146935]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the report of the New Zealand Medical Research Institute into the incidence of deep vein thrombosis amongst air travellers. [146936]

  Mr. McNulty
  The House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology reported in November 2000 on the health aspects of air travel, including Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT). The report identified the need for further research into air travel and DVT.

  The Department for Transport has subsequently provided £0.8 million, and the Department of Health £0.4 million, to a World Health Organisation (WHO) research project into the incidence of DVT and the possible physiological mechanisms involved. The

  549W
  European Commission is contributing a further £0.65 million. The results of the research are expected in early 2005.

  The Government and the Civil Aviation Authority's Aviation Health Unit are aware of the research recently published by the New Zealand Medical Research Institute. Once the WHO work is completed, the Aviation Health Unit will advise the Government on what, if any, further action needs to be taken.

  Advice on health and travel, given the present state of knowledge, is widely available to the public in the Department of Health's 'Health advice for Travellers' booklet and is under constant review. Advice has also been made available to the public through NHS Direct, the Internet, airlines and health services.

  Drink Driving
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each of the last five years for which data are available the number of(a) fatal, (b) serious and (c) slight casualties in (i) road and (ii) other transport accidents involving illegal alcohol levels; and what the percentage change was for each category between each year. [144551]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The table shows fatal serious and slight casualties in road accidents where at least one driver had a blood alcohol level over the legal limit for the last five years.

  Casualties in road accidents where at least one driver had a blood alcohol level over the legal limit.

  Year

  Fatal

  % change over previous change year

  Serious

  % change over previous Year

  Slight

  %change over previous year

  1998

  460

  2,520

  15,590

  1999

  460

  0

  2,470

  -2

  16,910

  8

  2000

  530

  15

  2,540

  3

  18,060

  7

  2001

  530

  0

  2,690

  6

  18,770

  4

  20021

  560

  6

  2,820

  5

  20,140

  7

  1Provisional data

  The information requested in respect of casualties in rail accidents is not held centrally, and information is not available for air or marine accidents.

  Transport Investment (Cambridgeshire)
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much investment there was in transport in(a) Cambridgeshire and (b) Huntingdon in each of the past five years. [146445]

  Mr. McNulty
  The figures provided relate to expenditure by Cambridgeshire county council and the Highways Agency. The Strategic Rail Authority was unable to provide figures for the railway industry as they do not have any records of expenditure by local authority area.

  Total investment in transport by Cambridgeshire county council and the Highways Agency in each of the past five years was:
  550W

  1998–99

  £million

  (a)

  7.6

  of which

  (b)

  2.5

  1999–2000

  (a)

  13.9

  of which

  (b)

  3.2

  2000–01

  (a)

  10.7

  of which

  (b)

  1.3

  2001–02

  (a)

  20.9

  of which

  (b)

  3.3

  2002–03

  (a)

  32.8

  of which

  (b)

  8.7

  Total

  (a)

  85.9

  of which

  (b)

  19.0

  M5
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the report will be published on the impact of traffic flow on local roads following the opening up of Junction 12 of the M5 into a full junction. [146476]

  Mr Jamieson
  The report on the impact of traffic flows on local roads near Junction 12 of the M5 will be published in summer 2004.

  Motorways
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of motorway there are per 1,000 square kilometres in(a) the UK and (b) other EU countries. [146737]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested is given in the Table as follows:

  Miles of motorway per 1,000 square kilometres, 2001

  United Kingdom

  9

  Austria

  12

  Belgium

  35

  Denmark

  14

  Finland

  1

  France

  12

  Germany

  20

  Greece

  3

  Irish Republic

  1

  Italy

  13

  Luxembourg

  28

  Netherlands

  34

  Portugal

  11

  Spain

  12

  Sweden

  2

  Post Office Closures
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effect on traffic congestion of post office closures. [146954]

  Mr. McNulty
  Any traffic effects of the closure of individual post offices will depend on the location of alternative offices, transport links, choices made by individual customers and the many other factors which may contribute to any local congestion. If there were any significant effects I would expect local authorities to take account of them in their Local Transport Plans.

  Road Safety
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 4 December 2003,Official Report, column 161W, on road safety, when he expects the studies he has commissioned to report. [147510]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The monitoring results of the traffic management scheme in Stiffkey, Norfolk were published in 2001 in TRL Report 500 Countryside Traffic Measures Group: Traffic calming schemes in Norfolk and Suffolk, and the summary report TRL Report 502 Countryside Traffic Measures Group: Demonstration schemes. The "Drivers and Traffic Calming" project team plans to report in spring 2005.

  The findings of the European project on road markings are reported in COST 331 Requirements for Horizontal Road Marking: Final Report of the Action, which was published in 1999. This was a collaborative project and was not commissioned by the Secretary of State for Transport.

  Road Surfaces
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made with the introduction of quieter road surfaces on(a) the M60 between junction 1 and junction 5 and (b) the M56 between junction 1 and junction 2; and what plans there are for introduction of further such surfaces. [147020]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The surfaces of the M56 and M60 Motorways at these locations are generally in good condition and low noise surfacing was used recently when the slip road leading from the M60 at Junction 4, to the M56, was widened. Under normal maintenance procedures, it will be necessary to resurface small sections of these motorways over the next two-three years, and low noise surfacing will be used. Full resurfacing using low noise materials will not be undertaken until a comprehensive renewal of the existing surface is needed.

  The Highways Agency has plans to fully resurface the M60 between Junctions 1 and 2. In order to keep to a minimum any disruption to road users, the Highways Agency would wish to avoid work on this section of the M60 whilst widening is taking place between Junctions 5 and 8. That widening will include low noise surfacing and is due for completion in spring 2006.

  The Government recognises that excessive noise from traffic is an important issue. Lower noise surfaces is used on the trunk road network for all new roads and for most resurfacing work.

  Roads
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of the total land area of the UK is taken up by roads. [146736]

  Mr. Jamieson
  It is estimated that about 1 per cent. of the land area of the UK is taken up by roads.

  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of dual carriageway there are per unit area in each county. [146738]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested is given in the Table:

  Miles of dual carriageway per thousand square miles, 2002

  County

  Miles of dual carriageway per thousand square miles

  Avon

  52

  Bedfordshire

  52

  Berkshire

  129

  Buckinghamshire

  57

  Cambridgeshire

  70

  Cheshire

  72

  Cleveland

  196

  Cornwall

  27

  Cumbria

  12

  Derbyshire

  60

  Devon

  35

  Dorset

  33

  Durham

  38

  East Sussex

  30

  Essex

  66

  Gloucestershire

  30

  Hampshire

  78

  Hereford and Worcester

  67

  Hertfordshire

  104

  Humberside

  33

  Isle of Wight

  10

  Kent

  73

  Lancashire

  40

  Leicestershire

  79

  Lincolnshire

  11

  Norfolk

  22

  North Yorkshire

  19

  Northamptonshire

  65

  Northumberland

  19

  Nottinghamshire

  72

  Oxfordshire

  42

  Shropshire

  15

  Somerset

  16

  Staffordshire

  64

  Suffolk

  38

  Surrey

  97

  Warwickshire

  47

  West Sussex

  78

  Wiltshire

  26

  Greater Manchester

  133

  Merseyside

  218

  South Yorkshire

  77

  Tyne and Wear

  321

  West Midlands

  317

  West Yorkshire

  97

  Greater London

  273

  England

  52

  Stroud Station (Disability Discrimination)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals are being made to permit Stroud station to become compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [146475]

  Mr. McNulty
  The SRA is considering how best to prioritise a programme of works to meet the accessibility requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act at stations and will be consulting on draft criteria later this year.

  Train Services (Northampton)
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when the new timetables for Northampton train services will be ready; [146758]

  (2) what consultation will be held on the new timetables for Northampton train services. [146759]

  Mr. McNulty
  Last year the Strategic Rail Authority consulted the rail industry, local authorities, passenger representatives and other stakeholders on the future pattern of service on the West Coast Main Line, including through Northampton. In June their 'West Coast Main Line Strategy' was published, indicating the likely level of service from September 2004 and beyond. The timetable for September 2004 has not yet been finalised, but it should be agreed at least 12 weeks prior to implementation, and made available to the public at least four weeks prior to the timetable change date. A further consultation on the emerging timetable will take place with key stakeholders, including rail user groups and Rail Passengers Committees, before it is finalised.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been spent on(a) maintenance and (b) upgrade of the West Coast Main Line in each year since 1997; and what the purpose of the expenditure was in each case. [146570]

  Mr. McNulty
  Annual expenditure on the maintenance and upgrade of the West Coast Main Line is as follows:

  £ million

  Maintenance

  Upgrade programme

  Total

  1997–98

  117

  126

  243

  1998–99

  118

  170

  288

  1999–2000

  115

  313

  428

  2000–01

  118

  687

  805

  2001–02

  123

  781

  904

  2002–03

  126

  970

  1,096

  2003–04

  126

  1,536

  1,662

  The maintenance expenditure in the table is defined as that required to keep the existing railway infrastructure assets operational.

  Upgrade programme expenditure relates to a range of activities intended to renew existing life-expired assets, and delivery of the associated enhancement works needed to increase line speeds and route capacity.

CABINET OFFICE

  School Funding
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the work carried out by the strategy and delivery units on the method of funding schools. [147148]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Strategy and Delivery Units work across a range of areas in support of Ministers and Departments. In line with exemption 2 set out in Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, internal discussion and advice remains confidential.

  A list of the Strategy Unit's current public projects is available from its website: www.strategy.gov.uk.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  War Disablement Pensioners
  20. Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the earnings disregard for war disablement pensioners in receipt of income support was last updated. [146802]

  Malcolm Wicks
  There is no specific earnings disregard for people receiving a war pension. although they can benefit from the standard disregards available to anyone claiming income support.

  However, in recognition of the special nature of war disablement pension, there is a £10 disregard of these payments when assessing entitlement to income-related benefits.

  Pensions Protection
  21. Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what action he is taking to ensure that workers who have lost their pensions through no fault of their own and are not covered by the pension protection fund are adequately compensated. [146803]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I have great sympathy for the difficulties faced by workers who have suffered pension losses.

  I, and other Ministers; have been meeting those affected to discuss proposals, but do not wish to raise false hope on this matter.

  Disability Benefits
  22. Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to undertake research into the take-up of disability benefits. [146804]

  Maria Eagle
  There are no current plans for research into the levels of take-up of disability benefits because entitlement to disability living allowance (DLA) and attendance allowance (AA) can be established reliably only after a claim has been made and the care and mobility needs of the customer assessed. There are no data available about who might be entitled to either DLA or AA if they were to make a claim, which means
  555W
  that there is no reliable means of calculating the number of people receiving the benefits as a proportion of the eligible population.

  Progress2Work
  23. John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the value for money of Progress2Work. [146805]

  Mr. Browne
  Our Progress2Work programme has been successful in helping more than 1,200 recovering drug misusers into work. And we will have extended this support across the country by April.

  Although no formal cost benefit analysis has been carried out, available information indicates that it costs around £750 per year to help each person through progress2work. This certainly represents good value for money compared to the £37,500 it would cost to keep the same person in prison.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps his Department is taking to promote the use of positive action within the public sector to combat age discrimination. [146427]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Department for Work and Pensions is combating age discrimination in the workplace through our Age Positive campaign. Age Positive is vigorously promoting the business benefits of an age diverse workforce by encouraging employers in both the public and private sector to adopt the voluntary Code of Practice: Age Diversity at Work, A Practical Guide For Business.

  The Age Positive campaign highlights the good practice of private and public sector employers—such as local authorities who promote age equality.

  Age Positive targets the public sector through advertising, internet, specialist press—and exhibits at public sector events such as the annual conference of the Society of Personnel Officers in Government Services.

  The Department for Work and Pensions was one of the first Departments to give people the choice of when they retire between the ages of 60 and 65. Many Departments have now given employees the choice and over 75 per cent. of civil service staff (outside the Senior Civil Service) now have the opportunity to stay on until they are 65. We have, in fact, responded to inquiries from staff seeking to work beyond 65 and introduced arrangements to allow them to do so.

  Asylum Seekers
  Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what initiatives his Department is taking to provide access to employment for asylum seekers who have been granted leave to remain. [146783]

  Mr. Browne
  We know that the level of unemployment among refugees is unacceptably high. We are taking positive action to reduce this such as: working more closely with the Home Office; engaging with community and voluntary groups; improving provision of English language and other training, and helping individuals to promote their skills to employers.
  556W
  In September we published an interim report 'Working to Rebuild Lives': a preliminary report towards a refugee employment strategy and we will be publishing our full strategy later this year.

  Bereavement Benefits
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) widows and (b) widowers have been refused benefit on the grounds of being late claimants in each year from 1997 to 2002. [145979]

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

  Bereavement Benefits were introduced on 9 April 2001, and for the first time extended support to both widows and widowers following the death of a spouse. These new benefits concentrate the help available where it is most needed; on immediate needs and on families with children.

  In April 2003 we extended the time limit for claiming Bereavement Payment to 12 months aligning it with the period over which a person can receive Bereavement Allowance.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions by what means couples are made aware of the rules relating to bereavement benefits; and if he will make a statement. [146206]

  Mr. Pond
  Information is available from local Jobcentre Plus and Social Security offices, and the Department for Work and Pensions website gives information about Bereavement Benefits together with leaflets and claim forms for downloading. A fully revised version of leaflet NP45 "A guide to Bereavement Benefit" for professional advisers and members of the public was published in May this year. Leaflets D49 "What to do after a death in England and Wales" and D49S "What to do after a death in Scotland" are reviewed and revised as necessary annually.

  In addition, we have been working with funeral directors, Registrars and voluntary groups such as Cruse, National Association of Widows and Citizens Advice Bureaux who may be contacted by bereaved people.

  We have worked with Registrars to amend the social security form for notifying the Department of a death (BD8) to draw greater attention to the fact that it can be used to initiate a claim for bereavement benefits, this went to print in April 2003 and has been in use by Registrars since then. Within the last year we have also arranged for Funeral Directors to be able to obtain Bereavement Benefit claim packs so that they can be given directly to bereaved people.

  We keep under review the way that information is made available about bereavement benefits so that bereaved people, at this very difficult time in their lives, know about their potential right to benefit and can act on it at the right time.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many and what proportion of parents who are waiting for their Child Support Agency cases to
  557W
  be transferred from the old to the new scheme will pay (a) increased and (b) decreased payments under the new scheme. [140881]

  Mr. Pond
  Of those non-resident parents who are earning an income, about 60 per cent. will have a reduced maintenance liability and about 40 per cent. will have an increased liability.

  Of those non-resident parents on benefit, about 60 per cent. will have an increased liability for maintenance. (Currently, 75 per cent. of non-resident parents on benefit are treated as having no liability; under the new scheme we expect them to pay a flat rate of £5 to the parent with care).

  This data is based on an analysis carried out in 2001, and reflects the position had all cases converted to the new scheme on the day of the scan. Since then, average income levels of non-resident parents have increased, which would reduce the fall in the level of maintenance liabilities.

  There are around a million live and assessed old scheme cases. Of those in work, we expect that a majority will have a reduced liability.

  Disability Discrimination Bill
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the draft Disability Discrimination Bill. [146796]

  Maria Eagle
  We are determined to end the marginalisation and exclusion of disabled people from all walks of life—which is the lot of too many of our disabled fellow citizens today.

  The draft Disability Discrimination Bill—along with other changes to the law which we are implementing, will represent, when we achieve its passage, a great progressive social advance—one which I hope will be supported by everyone in this House.

  Disabled People
  Jim Sheridan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what progress he has made in enabling disabled people to play a full and active role in society. [146801]

  Maria Eagle
  Good progress. For example we have legislated to extend the provisions of the DDA to education.

  There has been a narrowing of the gap between the employment levels of disabled people and non-disabled people.

  But more needs to be done.

  In October we are implementing new obligations on service providers to remove, alter or avoid physical features which prevent disabled people accessing services. (Among others this will apply to MPs)

  We are also extending the employment provisions of the DDA to more occupations and to almost all employers of whatever size. This will bring one million small employers and seven million more jobs into the protection of the Act.

  Income-related Benefits
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he expects to publish estimates of take-up of income-related benefits for 2001–02. [145982]

  Mr. Pond
  Estimates of take-up of income-related benefits in 2001–02 will be released in February. The publication month has been pre-announced in Updates—the National Statistics diary of statistical releases. The precise date will be pre-announced through Updates.

  Justices of the Peace
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on his Department's plans to amend the terms and conditions of employees of the Department who serve as justices of the peace. [145382]

  Maria Eagle
  [holding answer 7 January 2004]: The department's pay offer to its staff for 2003 for negotiation with its trade unions included proposals on performance bonus payments to be paid in addition to consolidated, pensionable pay. Under these proposals, the bonus payable would be performance related and take account of the total contribution made. It was envisaged it would be reduced proportionately for periods of absence beyond annual, public and privilege leave and other absences of five days or fewer. This provision was included as part of the effort to improve levels of attendance within the department. It could have had a limited effect on the bonus earnable by those, including justices of the peace, who were granted special leave by the department.

  The department has decided that the new attendance condition will not form part of the 2003 pay offer. Any future change of this kind would be a matter for negotiation with the department's unions.

  New Deal
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what(a) percentage and (b) value of New Deal contracts are delivered by (i) Jobcentre Plus, (ii) private companies and (iii) voluntary organisations; [144598]

  (2) if he will list the (a) private companies and (b) voluntary organisations that have contracts to deliver New Deal support. [144599]

  Mr. Browne
  All contracts to deliver New Deal are awarded to external providers, from the private and not for profit sectors. Some New Deal advisory services are delivered by Jobcentre Plus, but these are not governed by a contractual process.

  In 2002–03, total New Deal expenditure by Jobcentre Plus was approximately £8121 million; of this, expenditure on New Deal contracts with the private and not for profit sectors amounted to £337 million, approximately 42 per cent. of the total. The remainder of the expenditure was on services delivered by Jobcentre Plus (£247 million) and on allowances paid to New Deal customers (£180 million) and other financial incentives (£48 million).
  559W
  Jobcentre Plus contracts out New Deal provision to over 1,000 external providers and the details of these providers are held at regional and district level. Therefore, listing separately the private companies and voluntary organisations that have contracts to deliver New Deal support could be done only at a disproportionate cost.

  1Estimated outturn

  Benefits and Pensions Payment
  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what procedures his Department will put in place to pay benefits and pensions from 2005 to clients who by that time have not nominated a bank or Post Office Card Account to receive their payments and whose order books have expired; [147323]

  (2) whether non-respondents to his Department's letters about direct payment will be required to have payments made into a nominated account when order books are withdrawn in April 2005. [147069]

  Mr. Pond
  We have always recognised there will be some people, such as those who cannot open or manage any sort of account, and some immediate payments, such as Crisis Loans, that we cannot pay by Direct Payment. We are therefore designing an exceptions method of payment to meet the needs of people in these circumstances. We are in the process of discussing the design of the exceptions method of payment with the representative bodies most directly affected to design a secure and efficient method of payment which meets people's needs.

  Until the exception method of payment is in place, customers who choose not to convert to Direct Payment will be able to retain their Order Book. But, they will not be able to keep it indefinitely as Order Books are being phased out.

  Recipients of Pension Credit, not previously in receipt of MIG: Great Britain as at October and November 2003

  17 October 2003

  30 November 2003

  Households

  Individuals

  Households

  Individuals

  Great Britain total

  133,570

  179,120

  302,265

  404,555

  Guarantee credit only

  8,740

  11,455

  27,215

  35,820

  Guarantee credit and savings credit

  31,940

  39,170

  82,530

  101,220

  Savings credit only

  92,895

  128,495

  192,520

  267,515

  Recipients of Pension credit, in receipt or not in receipt of MIG: Great Britain as at October and November 2003

  17 October 2003

  30 November 2003

  Households

  Individuals

  Households

  Individuals

  Great Britain total

  1,902.250

  2,246,985

  2,056,010

  2,454,640

  Previously on MIG

  1,768,680

  2,067,870

  1,753,745

  2,050,085

  Previously NOT on MIG

  133,570

  179,120

  302,265

  404,555

  Notes:

  1. Figures are based on 100 per cent. Generalised Matching Service (CMS) data.

  2. Figures have been rounded to the nearest 5

  3. Figures might not sum due to rounding.

  4. A household may be a single person or a couple. Figures for individuals show total numbers of individuals in households where Pension Credit is in payment, i.e. two individuals where Pension Credit is in payment to a couple, and include a small number of partners under age 60.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, 100 per cent sample

  Pension Credit
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners are not receiving their pension credit entitlement(a) in England and (b) in London; and if he will make a statement. [146784]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, we estimate that there are approximately 3.15 million pensioner households in England and 450,000 in London likely to be eligible for pension credit. While we want everyone who is eligible to take up their entitlement, we have to recognise that some may choose not to apply.

  We have today published the latest monthly pension credit progress report, including numbers of recipient households in each parliamentary constituency in Great Britain.

  It shows that we continue to make good progress. As at 31 December 2003. more than 2.5 million pensioners were receiving pension credit. In the hon. Member's constituency, 4,204 households are receiving pension credit with an average award of £58.62 per week.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many(a) individuals and (b) households who had not previously been in receipt of the minimum income guarantee were in receipt of (i) the guarantee credit and (ii) the savings credit on (A) 14 October, (B) 11 November and (C) 10 December: [145983]

  (2) how many (a) individuals and (b) households were being paid the pension credit on (i) 14 October, (ii) 31 October and (iii) 11 November; and how many of these had not been paid the minimum income guarantee. [146091]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information for some of the dates referred to is not available in the format requested. The tables give information to the nearest dates for which information is available.

  Pensions Payment
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in how many cases retirement pensions have not been paid into Post Office card accounts on their due date because of computer problems; and if he will make it his policy to put in place emergency payments in such cases. [147068]

  Mr. Pond
  We are aware of a recent issue that resulted in a slight delay in paying some State Pensions into Post Office card accounts. The actual number of payments that were affected is not known.

  There are existing emergency payment procedures to cover the situation where payment is not made at the due time.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what arrangements were made for early payment of pensions over the Christmas and new year period 2003–04 for holders of Post Office card accounts; and if he will make a statement. [146762]

  Mr. Pond
  The Department arranges that where customers are due payments on a public holiday, that payments are advanced so that they can get the money before the public holiday.

  Payment to Post Office card accounts are paid in the same way as payments direct to any bank account. The arrangements put money into the account on the last banking day before each of the bank holidays namely the 24 December and 31 December.

  Pension Protection Fund
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether he proposes that public sector pension schemes should be required to pay insurance premiums to the Pension Protection Fund; and if he will make a statement. [146966]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Public sector pension schemes that are protected by a Government guarantee would not require or be eligible to receive compensation from the Pension Protection Fund. Consequently, these schemes will not be required to pay the annual levy.

PRIME MINISTER

  Commonwealth Caribbean Countries
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his meeting with prime ministers from Commonwealth Caribbean countries. [146430]

  The Prime Minister
  I met Commonwealth Caribbean leaders on 2 December. The leaders attending were the Prime Minister of Jamaica, at that time concurrently the Chairman of CARICOM, the President of Guyana and the Prime Ministers of the Bahamas, Belize, St. Kitts and Nevis and St. Lucia. The CARICOM Secretary-General and the Director General of the Caribbean Regional Negotiating Machinery also attended.

  On trade, we agreed on the importance of getting the Doha development round moving again and of working to ensure that changes to trade regimes are phased so that vulnerable Caribbean economies can adjust. On
  562W
  security we discussed the threat to the region of drug trafficking and gun crime and the way that these problems affect the UK. We are exploring ways in which we can enhance our security cooperation.

  The Government have also offered to facilitate an event in the Caribbean looking at best practice in tackling stigmatisation and discrimination of those with HIV/AIDS.

  E-government
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Prime Minister which departments of Government besides the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have responsibilities for e-government at(a) parish council and (b) town council levels; and if he will make a statement. [147429]

  The Prime Minister
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has sole responsibility in Central Government for local e-Government. It works closely with the Office of the e-Envoy on policy and infrastructure issues such as the Government Gateway. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister consults with other Government Departments on cross cutting issues affecting local e-government policy as and when appropriate and works closely with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the development of the role of town and parish councils.

  Euro
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister in how many speeches during 2003 he declared support for the Government's policy on the euro. [147302]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer the Financial Secretary at the Treasury gave to him today.

  During 2003 as in other years, I set out the Government's policy on the euro in speeches, media appearances and of course in Parliament. Copies of my speeches are available on the Number 10 website.

  Iraq
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to assist the Iraqi Governing Council in organising free and fair elections; and if he will make statement. [146512]

  The Prime Minister
  On 15 November, the Iraqi Governing Council announced plans for establishing a transitional national assembly formed through caucus elections at provincial level.

  The assembly will be elected no later than 31 May 2004, leading to the creation of a new transitional administration by the end of June 2004. This will be followed by elections for a constitutional convention, leading in turn to national elections for a new representative Iraqi Government by the end of 2005

  We will assist the Iraqis during this process in any way we can.

  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the library the Iraq Survey Group report and its annexes listing the massive network of laboratories and
  563W
  factories engaged in the production of weapons of mass destruction referred to in his Christmas broadcast to British forces in Iraq on 16 December 2003. [146580]

  The Prime Minister
  The leader of the Iraq Survey Group, Dr. David Kay, presented an unclassified summary report to the US authorities on 2 October 2003. copies of which were placed in the libraries of both Houses. This summary report contains numerous references to a clandestine network of laboratories in Iraq.

  The full report, which was shared in confidence with other principal coalition partners, contains detailed and operationally sensitive information and is highly classified. It has been the practice of successive Governments not to give information on intelligence and security matters, under exemption 1 of Part 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Prime Minister on what date after 9 September 2002 he was informed that the weapons of mass destruction referred to in the September 2002 dossier which could be deployed in 45 minutes were battlefield mortar shells or small calibre weaponry. [147190]

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing to add to the reply gave to my hon. Friends, the Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) on 27 October 2003,Official Report, column 50W.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his letter to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent, of 28 October 2003, if he will list(a) the titles of each of the UK-owned documents in respect of Iraqi procurement of uranium from Niger to which he refers and (b) the dates on which each document respectively was provided to (i) the International Atomic Energy Agency and (ii) the UN Special Commission on Iraq; and how the Government sought to ensure that the owners of other intelligence of which it had been informed about the Niger uranium procurement by Iraq made the IAEA aware of its contents. [147621]

  The Prime Minister
  As my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Rammell), said in his answer on 1 September 2003,Official Report, column 805W and I reiterated in my letter of 28 October, the UK did not provide any documentation to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) or UNMOVIC on Iraqi attempts to procure uranium from Africa.

  On the issue of how the Government sought to ensure that the owners of other intelligence about Niger uranium procurement by Iraq made the IAEA aware of this, I refer my hon. Friend to the answers the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. MacShane) and the Under-secretary of State (Mr. Rammell) gave my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) on 7 July 2003, Official Report, column 579W and 1 September 2003, Official Report, column 805W.

  Ministerial Visit (Basra)
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the library a copy of a transcript of his remarks to journalists on board his flight from Basra on 4 January. [146581]

  The Prime Minister
  Any comments I made en route to Basra on 4 January were made on the record and were fully reported by the media at the time in the same way as any briefings I make on visits like this.

  Russia
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 5 January 2004,Official Report, column 57W, on Chechnya, how many (a) meetings, (b) telephone calls and (c) letters he has exchanged with President Putin since 18 June 2003. [147081]

  The Prime Minister
  I last met President Putin on 26 June during his State Visit to the UK and we discussed a wide range of issues including Chechnya.

  I regularly discuss either by telephone or through correspondence a wide range of issues with President Putin.

  As with previous Administrations, it is not the practice of this Government to make public details of all discussions I have with foreign leaders.

  Taskforces
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the task forces he has set up since 1997; when each last reported; and when he expects each to have completed its task. [147237]

  The Prime Minister
  Information on task forces in existence between May 1997 and October 2000 was made available in three reports published in January, July and December 2000 on "Task Forces, Ad Hoc Advisory Groups and Reviews".

  For the years 2001–02 and 2002–03, this information has been included in the publications Public Bodies 2002' and 'Public Bodies 2003' respectively.

  Copies of these reports are available in the Library of the House.

  World Trade Organisation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with(a) President Bush and (b) Mr. Romano Prodi since 14 September 2003 on the need to resume trade negotiations following the termination of the World Trade Organisation Ministerial in Cancun. [146637]

  The Prime Minister
  I regularly have discussions with President Bush and Mr. Prodi on a wide range of international issues including on trade.

  The Government are committed to working with our international partners to restart the Doha Development Round at the earliest opportunity.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Deprivation
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to include measures of(a) the state of the physical environment and (b) crime and disorder in revised indices of deprivation; and what methodology will be used to measure these. [146108]

  Yvette Cooper
  It is proposed that the revised Indices of Deprivation 2000 (ID 2000) should include new domains to cover the living environment and crime and disorder.

  For the Living Environment domain, indicators have been proposed to cover both the quality of the 'indoors' living environment and the 'outdoors' physical environment. In respect of the latter, the two indicators proposed are:
  'Air quality' based on data held on the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory; and
  'Road Traffic Accidents involving injury to pedestrians and cyclists' based on data available from the Department of Transport's STAT19 database. This data will provide an indictor of the risk of injury to non-motorised road users.

  The purpose of the Crime domain is to measure the incidence of recorded crime, representing the occurrence of personal and material victimisation at a small area level. It is proposed that four composite indicators are constructed (burglary, theft, criminal damage and violence) covering some 33 different categories of recorded crime. These indicators will be constructed either using full recorded crime data from the 39 geographic regional police forces or if this is not possible, full recorded crime data for the majority of the police forces but modelled crime data for the areas that are unable to provide recorded crime data.

  E-Government
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how much of the e-Government budget has been(a) allocated to and (b) spent on (i) parish councils and (ii) town councils; and if he will make a statement; [147427]

  (2) whether (a) parish councils and (b) town councils are included in the e-Government targets for local authorities to be on line by 2005; and if he will make a statement. [147428]

  Phil Hope
  The Government's target to see all services electronically enabled by 2005 only applies to local authorities and fire authorities who are subject to the Best Value Performance Indicator 157, and does not apply to town and parish councils.

  As they are not subject to this target, parish councils are not being funded directly under the £675 million Local e-Government Programme. However, many councils are working very successfully with local parish councils to both support their websites and to build local parish content into community public portals. Our National Strategy for Local e-Government encourages all councils to have this joined-up approach to providing local online services and information. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is funding 66 Local e-Government Partnerships to provide Community Portals, which will include local parish content.

  Emergency Planning
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what role will be played by local authorities in the South East of England in the event of the mass evacuation of London; and what recent discussions he has had with them on contingency plans for the mass evacuation of London; [147284]

  (2) what plans there are to use towns in the South East of England in the event of the mass evacuation of London; [147285]

  (3) what role the A23 would play in the event of the mass evacuation of London; [147286]

  (4) what plans are in place for the mass evacuation of London in the event of a major emergency; [147287]

  (5) what plans are in place for the evacuation of hospitals and prisons in the event of the mass evacuation of London. [147288]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Mass evacuation of parts of London, or any other area, would be very much a last resort.

  However, as part of its role in making sure London is as well prepared as possible to cope with any emergency situation, the London Resilience partnership has been carrying out generic planning for the temporary evacuation of areas of London in the event of this being necessary. The local authorities and emergency services in the surrounding counties, including the South East of England, have been actively involved in this work and have had detailed discussions over the past year with officials in the London Resilience Team and the Regional Resilience Team based in the Government Office for the South East.

  The principal role of local authorities in the event of any serious emergency, whether or not it necessitates mass evacuation, is to provide support for the people in their area; in general this will involve close co-operation with the emergency services. In the event of mass evacuation of areas of London being required, the local authorities in the surrounding counties—including those in the South East of England as need be—would be involved in providing initial rest and reception facilities for evacuees.

  We do not make publicly available detailed contingency plans for meeting specific needs on responding to particular types of incident.

  Emergency Tri-Service Centre
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent assessment has been made of the operation of the Emergency Tri-Service Centre in Gloucestershire. [146569]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has made no assessment of the operation of the Emergency Tri-Service centre in Gloucestershire. The Government's consultants, Mott MacDonald, looked at shared control arrangements while undertaking work to update their April 2000 report "The Future of Fire Service Control Rooms and Communications in England and Wales". The latest report was published on 11 December 2003 and copies are available in the Library of the House.

  EU Regional Funding
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what organisations responsible for the distribution of European Union regional funding currently operate in the(a) North East, (b) Yorkshire and Humberside and (c) North West regions; and what organisations in each of those areas are in receipt of such funding. [146683]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The distribution of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) in England is the responsibility of Government Offices for the Regions. The Government Offices for the North East, North West and Yorkshire and the Humber respectively distribute funds to recipient organisations in their regions.

  A variety of public, private and voluntary sector organisations in these areas receive ERDF. A list of recipients of ERDF during the current 2000–06 programming period will be available in the Libraries of the House. ERDF supports measures such as the development of sites and premises for industry and businesses; transport infrastructure; support for small and medium sized enterprises; tourism; research and development; and community economic development.

  Firefighters
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister for what reason the budget of the Arson Control Forum is projected to rise from £1.36 million in 2002–03 to £4.02 million in 2003–04 and to £4.80 million in 2005–06. [146420]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Since 2001 the Arson Control Forum has funded 50 local pilot projects designed to reduce arson. The increased budget recognises their success and will enable the forum to fund additional projects, due to be announced shortly, which build on the lessons learned from the original pilots.

  Local arson reduction projects are essential to achieve the Government's target to reduce by 10 per cent. the number of deliberate fires by March 2010 from the 2001–02 baseline, as published in the Fire White Paper 'Our Fire and Rescue Service'. This target is a key objective in the Government's plans to reform the fire and rescue service which include increased emphasis on fire prevention work. This objective was reiterated in the draft Fire and Rescue National Framework, published on 11 December 2003.

  Housing
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what research he has commissioned on the growth of holiday homes in areas where there is a perceived shortage of affordable housing, with particular reference to pressure on local services. [146631]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has not commissioned any research on this topic. However, the annual Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Survey of English Housing (SEH) estimates the number of households in England with a second home including the number of those categorised as Holiday Home/Retirement Home/Weekend Cottage. The report on the 2001/02 SEH is available in the Library of the House.
  568W
  Jon Trickett
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of cost of improving the Wakefield council housing stock to the Government's prescribed standards. [147454]

  Keith Hill
  The Deputy Prime Minister has not made any estimate of the cost of improving the Wakefield council housing stock to the Government's prescribed standards. This is for the council to determine as part of its business planning process. Based on the findings of an independent stock condition survey, commissioned by Wakefield Metropolitan District Council in 2002, it has been estimated that it will cost £236 million (at today's prices) to bring all public sector stock up to the Government's decent homes standard by year 2010.

  Housing Stock Transfer
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which local authorities have still to ballot local authorities tenants on transfer of their housing stock. [146978]

  Keith Hill
  There are a total of 10 local authorities on the 2003 LSVT Programme who have yet to ballot their tenants. They are as follows:

  Forest Heath District Council

  London Borough Islington (two partial transfers)

  London Borough Lambeth (three partial transfers)

  Manchester City Council (three partial transfers)

  Middlesbrough

  North East Lincolnshire

  Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

  Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council

  Wakefield Metropolitan Borough Council

  Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council

  Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time firefighters were employed by the Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service in each of the last five years. [146977]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested is tabled as follows:

  Number of firefighters employed by Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service

  Date

  Wholetime

  Retained

  31 March 1999

  1,007

  402

  31 March 2000

  1,008

  398

  31 March 2001

  1,010

  371

  31 March 2002

  1,002

  357

  31 March 2003

  1,015

  369

  Source:

  Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service Annual Returns to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

  Leasehold
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on progress made to implement the provisions of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 which will allow leaseholders of houses to select their own insurer. [146678]
  569W
  Keith Hill
  It is anticipated an Order will be made by May 2004 to bring into force the remaining provisions of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. These provisions include those relating to property insurance, to the new Right to Enfranchise companies, and to accounting and forfeiture. Commencement dates will vary depending on the lead-in period needed by landlords to prepare for the changes, but the provisions relating to insurance should be effective by September 2004.

  Local Authorities
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many new(a) statutory and (b) regulatory requirements were placed on local authorities in (i) 2001, (ii) 2002 and (iii) 2003. [147238]

  Mr. Raynsford
  This information is not held centrally in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, our arrangements for the funding of local authority revenue spending in any year take into account the cost pressures and new burdens on local government including those identified with the Local Government Association in the context of the relevant Spending Review.

  Sheltered Housing
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent action the Government has taken to promote sheltered housing; and if he will make a statement on the provision of sheltered housing in York and North Yorkshire. [145125]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Government is committed to ensuring that all vulnerable people receive the housing-related support they need including, where appropriate, sheltered housing and associated support services such as provision for wardens, to help them improve their quality of life by providing a stable environment, enabling greater independence. The Supporting People programme, introduced in April 2003, provides an integrated framework for planning and funding housing-related support services.

  In February 2003, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Department of Health and the Housing Corporation jointly published Preparing Older People's Strategies—linking housing to health, social care and other local strategies. Local authorities are encouraged to use it as part of drawing up local delivery and capacity plans for older people's services, which includes working in partnership with housing authorities. It stresses that older people's strategies on housing need to engage with and consult older people.

  In York and North Yorkshire the following housing schemes for older people included in Housing Corporation programmes for 2002–03 and 2003–04 are being funded by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister through the Housing Corporation:

  Stokesley, Hambleton: 40 units of extra-care accommodation.

  Hospital of James Knowles, Craven: Improvements to seven units of almshouse accommodation.

  St. Georges, Harrogate: 12 units of warden supported housing.
  570W
  Swan Hill, Scarborough: Approximately 18 units of warden supported housing.

  In York there are currently 595 tenancies in council sheltered housing schemes and a further 887 tenancies in the independent sector. Over the next year York council will be improving facilities in two of its sheltered schemes to provide the potential to deliver 78 extra-care tenancies.

  Tenancy Deposits
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the proportion of completed tenancies requiring independent adjudication under the pilot voluntary tenancy deposit scheme was; and if he will estimate the proportion of completed tenancies that would require independent adjudication under a statutory tenancy deposit scheme. [147052]

  Keith Hill
  The Independent Housing Ombudsman, who managed the pilot voluntary tenancy deposit scheme, has no information on the proportion of completed tenancies requiring independent adjudication under those schemes. That is because the terms of reference of the pilot scheme did not require that the number of completed tenancies should be recorded.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no reliable estimate of the number of disputes that would require adjudication under a statutory tenancy deposit scheme. The Survey of English Housing 2001–02 noted that some 20 per cent. of households with a tenancy ending in the previous three years claimed to have had their deposit unreasonably withheld in full or in part. The number of disputes, for which independent adjudication might be required under any statutory arrangements for tenancy deposit protection, might well be lower than this figure.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the number of private tenants who have had their tenancy deposit unreasonably withheld in each of the last five years, broken down by Government office region. [147053]

  Keith Hill
  The information is not currently available. I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as the information is available.

  Thames Gateway
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the average residential density was of housing developments given planning permission since March 2000 in the boroughs that make up the London part of the Thames Gateway, as defined by RPG9a: The Thames Gateway Planning Framework. [146844]

  Keith Hill
  Information relating to the average residential density of housing development in the boroughs that make up the London part of the Thames Gateway is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what(a) criteria and (b) milestones have been established for monitoring the implementation of the Government's plans for the Thames Gateway; and who is responsible for carrying out the necessary monitoring. [146845]
  571W
  Keith Hill
  The Government's plans for the Thames Gateway are set out in "Creating Sustainable Communities: Making It Happen in the Thames Gateway and Growth Areas", published on 30 July 2003. That document makes it clear that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will be establishing a Gateway delivery office to work alongside local, regional and national partners to turn strategic plans into operational programmes. The Gateway Office will be responsible for monitoring implementation of the Government's plans. It is anticipated that the Office will be up and running shortly.

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister in respect of the new communities that are envisaged in the Thames Gateway, what plans the Government have for the adoption of standards for access to community infrastructure, with particular reference to(a) schools, (b) health care facilities, (c) leisure facilities and (d) open spaces. [146846]

  Keith Hill
  The information is as follows:

  (a) (b) (c) For the Thames Gateway and elsewhere, planning policy (in particular Planning Policy Guidance 13) makes it clear that jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services should be accessible by public transport, walking and cycling.

  In addition, the Social Exclusion Unit's "Making the Connections" report, published in February 2003, sets out a strategy to help people on low incomes access work, food shops and key public services, notably education and health care. This includes the approach of accessibility planning in those areas that produce a Local Transport Plan, where local transport planners and others work together to examine accessibility needs and how to overcome barriers. Accessibility planning is currently being piloted and various accessibility indicators are under consideration.

  (d) Well-designed and managed open spaces are an essential ingredient of thriving, inclusive and sustainable communities in the Thames Gateway and elsewhere. Our planning policies (set out in Planning Policy Guidance 17) require a robust assessment of the existing and future needs of communities for open space, guiding their provision and management, and allow local authorities to set local standards to meet the identified needs of their community.

  Yorkshire and Humber Housing Board
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how much has been allocated to the 572W
  Yorkshire and Humber Regional Housing Board for 2003–04; and how much of this is allocated by them to (a) repairs and renovation of council housing and (b) privatisation of council housing; [146422]

  (2) how much has been allocated in the current financial year by the Yorkshire and Humber Regional Housing Board to gap funding for privatisation of council housing to (a) north-east Lincolnshire and (b) other local authorities; and what the allocation of gap funding per council property is in each area which has received it. [146423]

  Keith Hill
  2003/04 was the last year for which housing capital allocations were made to local authorities on the old basis of recommendations made to Ministers by Government Offices (the Yorkshire and the Humber Regional Housing Board was not therefore involved). As was standard, 80 per cent. of the resources available were allocated using a needs-based formula and 20 per cent. according to performance. Local authorities in Yorkshire and the Humber had an allocation of £65.9 million. This was for authorities to use according to their own priorities, without having to identify specific purposes such as repair and renovation of council housing or supporting stock transfers.

  Under the new arrangements (introduced last year in the Communities Plan) the Yorkshire and Humber Regional Housing Board recommended capital allocations to local authorities totalling £76 million for 2004–05 and £81 million for 2005–06. The recommendations, which we accepted, included a fixed sum based on a needs-based formula (95 percent. in 2004–05 and 70 per cent. in 2005–06 of what they would have received under the old arrangements).

  The balance is being used to commission proposals to deliver regional housing strategy priorities, and, in 2005–06, £10 million for 'transformational proposals' of regional significance, which deliver one or more of the regional housing strategy priorities. The Board has said that it will consider applications for gap funding from this £10 million in specific circumstances. Gap funding proposals have been submitted by north-east Lincolnshire and one other local authority. I understand that the Regional Housing Board will be considering at its meeting on 22 January all proposals submitted.

  Separate from the above, local authorities in Yorkshire and the Humber also benefited from support for capital investment through the major repairs allowance (current figures are £172 million in each of 2003–04 and 2004–05). This allowance, calculated formulaically, covers the bulk of support for the repair and renovation of council housing.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Asylum Seekers
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children seeking asylum who have arrived in the UK are missing from care. [144996]

  Margaret Hodge
  At 31 March 2003, the most recent date for which information is available, there were 15 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children missing from their agreed placements within local authority care in England. Information is not collected by this Department on the number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who are in care in other parts of the UK.

  Child Care
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many extra child care places have been created in each year since 1997; [145266]

  (2) how many child care places have been created in the 20 per cent. most disadvantaged wards in each year since 1997. [145269]

  Margaret Hodge
  The available information is shown in the table.

  New child care places1

  New child care places England2

  New child care places net of closures, England2

  New child care places net of closures, 20 per cent. Most disadvantaged wards in England, estimated3

  1997–98

  7,500

  6,000

  n/a

  1998–99

  66,200

  53,000

  n/a

  1999–2000

  133,000

  67,800

  n/a

  2000–01

  168,200

  87,000

  n/a

  2001–02

  139,800

  82,800

  41,800

  2002–03

  185,400

  87,300

  59,600

  1 All figures relate to financial years and are rounded to the nearest hundred places. Child care places are defined to include: places for pre-school children which last three-and-a-half hours or longer per day, in day nurseries or with childminders; places for children receiving nursery education which, combined with the nursery education, total at least three-and-a-half hours per day; and places for statutory school age children aged up to 14 (16 for those with special educational needs or disabilities) in breakfast or after school clubs or with childminders for any length of time, or in holiday play schemes of three and a half hours or longer per day.

  2 Figures from 1999–2000 onwards are drawn from local authorities' quarterly child care returns. Figures for 1997–98 and 1998–99 relate only to child care places directly funded by Government.

  3 This information was not collected prior to 2001–02. Figures are drawn from local authorities' Early Years Development and Childcare Plans, and reflect their estimated position at 31 March 2002 and 31 March 2003.

  574W
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much funding has been made available for child care for each year since 1997. [145267]

  Margaret Hodge
  As published in the Department for Education and Skills Departmental Report 2003, expenditure was:

  £ million

  Sure Start

  Early Years and Childcare

  Total

  1997–98

  —

  1,203

  1,203

  1998–99

  —

  1,349

  1,349

  1999–2000

  7

  1,486

  1,493

  2000–01

  56

  1,652

  1,708

  2001–02

  134

  1,823

  1,957

  2002–03

  210

  2,114

  2,324

  Note:

  The 2002–03 expenditure quoted reflects actual expenditure as opposed to the estimates contained in the Departmental Report.

  The Early Years and Childcare figures include early education funding (Under Fives Block) to local authorities.

  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many registered child minders there were in England and Wales in each year since 1997. [145268]

  Margaret Hodge
  Figures are only available for England. Child care is a devolved issue.

  Data on the number of registered child minders was recorded by the Day Care Facilities Study from 1997 to 2001. In September 2001 Ofsted took over the registration of places and undertook a 'cleansing' exercise to delete all registered childminders who were no longer operating. This exercise was undertaken throughout 2001–02, therefore there are no figures available for registered child minders for 2002. Ofsted published their March 2003 data in June.

  Registered child minders 1997–2003 are as follows:

  Number

  1997

  98,500

  1998

  94,700

  1999

  82,200

  2000

  75,600

  2001

  72,300

  2002

  n/a

  2003

  68,200

  Although there was a constant decline in childminders year on year to 2003, the number of child minders is now showing a steady increase month on month. Ofsted data at September 2003 shows an increase in the number of operational child minders of 2,000 since March 2003.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many childcare places there are in England. [145662]
  575W
  Margaret Hodge
  This is a matter for Ofsted. The HM Chief Inspector, David Bell, will write to the hon. Member and a copy of his letter will be placed in the Library.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the Government are doing to extend the availability of affordable, good quality child care. [146259]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Government have funded a major expansion in child care through their National Childcare Strategy. Since 1997, 808,000 new places have been created, benefiting well over 1.4 million children. Following the more than doubling in child care expenditure agreed as part of the 2002 Spending Review, the number of children benefiting from new places will rise to over 2 million by 2006.

  Specific initiatives such as Sure Start local programmes, Neighbourhood Nurseries and our new Children's Centres, are extending high quality child care in disadvantaged communities, increasingly provided alongside early education and health and family support.

  Our National Standards set a benchmark of quality below which no registered child care provider should fall arid Ofsted inspects against these Standards.

  Substantial help with child care costs is provided to lower and middle income families through the child care element of the working tax credit. The Chancellor announced new plans in his Pre Budget Report in December to encourage employer supported child care from April 2005 through tax exemptions of up to £50 per week for employees.

  Child Protection
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children were considered at risk from abuse in(a) England and (b) Wales in 2002–03. [145691]

  Margaret Hodge
  Details of the number of children and young people on child protection registers in England for the period 2002–03 will be published by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) on Thursday 29 January 2004.

  At 31 March 2002 there were 25,700 children and young people on child protection registers in England, just over 4 per cent less than a year earlier.

  Information is not collected by DfES on the number of children who are considered at risk from abuse in Wales.

  Food Technology
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the number of hours spent each week teaching food technology in years one to nine; and what proportion of that time involves practical cooking skills. [146346]
  576W
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  No estimate has been made of the amount of time schools spend on teaching food technology. Food technology is part of the design and technology curriculum, and, as with all subjects, it is for individual schools to plan their timetable. Schools allocate time to each subject to meet the needs of their pupils and to fulfil the statutory requirements of the National Curriculum. 'Designing and Timetabling the Primary Curriculum', published in 2002 by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and 'Designing the Key Stage 3 Curriculum', published by DfES in 2002 provide guidance for schools.

  We are encouraging schools to undertake more practical cookery as part of our joint Food in Schools programme with the Department of Health.

  Free School Meals
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools have fallen below the 20 per cent. threshold of pupils taking free school meals in the past five years. [145424]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The information is given separately for pupils taking free school meals and for pupils known to be eligible for free school meals in primary and secondary schools over the last five years.

  Maintained primary and secondary schools1: proportion of school population known to be eligible for a free school meal. Position in January each year 1999 to 2003—England

  Maintained Primary Schools

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Number of schools by proportion of school population known to be eligible for free school meals2

  Below 20 per cent.

  12,230

  12,368

  12,534

  12,639

  12,631

  20 per cent. and over

  6,004

  5,790

  5,535

  5,346

  5,230

  Total number of schools

  18,234

  18.158

  18,069

  17,985

  17,861

  Percentage of schools by proportion of school population known to be eligible for free school meals3

  Below 20 per cent

  67.1

  68.1

  69.4

  70.3

  70.7

  20 per cert. and over

  32.9

  31.9

  30.6

  29.7

  29.3

  Total

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  Maintained Secondary Schools

  Number of schools by proportion of school population known to be eligible for free school meals2

  Below 20 per cent.

  2,367

  2,397

  2,421

  2,491

  2,502

  20 per cent. and over

  1,193

  1,153

  1,060

  966

  934

  Total number of schools

  3,560

  3,550

  3,481

  3,457

  3,436

  Percentage of schools by proportion of school population known to be eligible for free school meals3

  Below 20 per cent.

  66.5

  67.5

  69.5

  72.1

  72.8

  20 per cent. and over

  33.5

  32.5

  30.5

  27.9

  27.2

  Total

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  1Includes middle schools as deemed.

  2 Prior to 2001 figures relate to number of pupils known to be eligible for a free school meal. From 2001 this definition was expanded to include only pupils who were known to be eligible for and claiming a free school meal.

  3 Number of schools in each band expressed as a percentage of all schools.

  Source:

  Annual Schools Census
  577W

  Maintained primary and secondary schools1: proportion of school population who took a free school meal Position in January each year 1999 to 2003—England

  Maintained Primary Schools

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Number of schools by proportion of school population taking a free school meal2

  Below 20 per cent.

  13,602

  13,601

  13,870

  13,865

  13,735

  20 per cent. and over

  4,632

  4,557

  4,199

  4,120

  4,126

  Total number of schools

  18,234

  18,158

  18,069

  17,985

  17,861

  Percentage of schools by proportion of school population taking a free school meal3

  Below 20 per cent.

  74.6

  74.9

  76.8

  77.1

  76.9

  20 per cert. and over

  25.4

  25.1

  23.2

  22.9

  23.1

  Total

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  Maintained Secondary Schools

  Number of schools by proportion of school population taking a free school meal2

  Below 20 per cent.

  2,845

  2.839

  2,858

  2,870

  2,856

  20 per cent. and over

  715

  711

  623

  587

  580

  Total number of schools

  3,560

  3,550

  3,481

  3,457

  3,436

  Percentage of schools by proportion of school population taking a free school meal3

  Below 20 per cent.

  79.9

  80.0

  82.1

  83.0

  83.1

  20 per cent. and over

  20.1

  20.0

  17.9

  17.0

  16.9

  Total

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  1 Includes middle schools as deemed.

  2 Proportion of school population taking a free school meal on the day of the Census in January.

  3 Number of schools in each band expressed as a percentage of all schools.

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census

  Information Technology
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he is taking to increase the information technology skills of teaching staff. [146660]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  A range of materials to enable teachers to fully embed ICT in their subject teaching have been developed. Materials covering Key Stage 1 and 2 literacy and numeracy, including Foundation Stage, and Key Stage 3 science were launched in 32 LEA areas last year. These subjects, together with Key Stage 3 English, maths, art, geography, design and technology, ICT and modern foreign languages were formally launched nationally at the BETT2004 Exhibition at Olympia this week. Further subjects will follow later. In addition to the materials, extensive one-to-one mentoring and online peer group support are an integral part of these courses.

  The Department has contracted a number of commercial providers to develop these materials and schools are able to buy into them using Standards Fund money.

  Training in the effective use of ICT in teaching is a mandatory part of Teacher Training Institute training courses.

  Andrew Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures are in place to promote recruitment of teachers of information and communication technology. [146664]

  Mr. Miliband
  From September 2000, £6,000 training bursaries have been offered to postgraduate trainee teachers. £4,000 Golden Hellos are also available to those 578W
  who go on to teach priority subjects, including information and communication technology, in a maintained school. Since September 2002, these incentives have been reinforced by the Repayment of Teachers' Loans scheme piloted for three years for new teachers of priority subjects. These incentives have helped to more than double recruitment to courses of initial teacher training in information and communication technology between 1999/2000 and 2003/04.

  KPMG Services
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the services to be provided to schools by KPMG which he announced on 29 October, including the number of schools to be visited and the expected average duration of that visit; and if he will make a statement on changes in the extent and scope of the work in the period since he first announced the programme. [145614]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 5 January 2004]: KPMG and the National College for School Leadership (NCSL), in consultation with key stakeholders including local authority, teacher and governor associations, have jointly developed a range of budget management support for schools, including online materials, workshops and consultancy services. The programme of workshops, which will be rolled out from January to March 2004 will be available to 1,000 schools and follow-up surgeries will be available, on a regional basis, for up to 125 schools with pressing and complex problems. The website containing online support materials was launched on 15 December and is available to all schools, as will be the central helpdesk, run by NCSL and available from this month.

  Maintenance Grants
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment his Department has made of the implications of raising the level of maintenance grants above £1,000. [147241]

  Alan Johnson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Regulatory Impact Assessment, published on 8 January, which sets out the costs and benefits of introducing a new national grant of up to £1,000 a year from 2004/05 for students from low income families, and of increasing the grant to £1,500 a year from 2006/07. Copies of the Regulatory Impact Assessment were placed in the Library of the House; it is also available on the Department for Education and Skills website.

  Off-site Educational Visits
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent advice has been issued to schools and teachers about arrangements for off-site educational visits. [145796]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  My Department has published:

  "Standards for LEAs in Overseeing Educational Visits (2002)"1

  "Standards for Adventure (2002)"1

  "A Handbook for Group Leaders (2002)"1

  "Group Safety at Water Margins (2003)"—produced with the Central Council of Physical Recreation

  1 These supplement "Health and Safety of Pupils on Educational Visits: A Good Practice Guide 1998"

  Pupil Absences
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 16 December 2003,Official Report, column 836W, on pupil absences, if he will break down the number of

  Unauthorised absence in maintained primary and secondary schools in England, 1997/98 and 2002/03

  Academic year 1997/98

  Academic year 2002/03

  Total possible sessions

  Number of half days missed due to unauthorized absence

  Percentage of half days missed due to unauthorized absence

  Total possible sessions

  Number of half days missed due to unauthorized absence

  Percentage of half days missed due to unauthorized absence

  Barking and Dagenham

  6,960,095

  105,543

  1.52

  7,459,186

  119,169

  1.60

  Barnet

  11,942,107

  77,882

  0.65

  11,778,740

  87,718

  0.74

  Barnsley

  8,743,218

  103,801

  1.19

  9,345,586

  95,717

  1.02

  Bath and North East Somerset

  6,612,203

  25,869

  0.39

  6,550,822

  37,512

  0.57

  Bedfordshire

  15,385,361

  57,620

  0.37

  16,147,095

  55,529

  0.34

  Bexley

  9,197,337

  38,296

  0.42

  10,093,091

  54,322

  0.54

  Birmingham

  43,684,482

  516,068

  1.18

  44,600,995

  453,883

  1.02

  Blackburn with Darwen

  6,863,979

  68,232

  0.99

  6,933,373

  54,619

  0.79

  Blackpool

  5,523,173

  61,956

  1.12

  5,565,569

  54,300

  0.98

  Bolton

  12,305,786

  114,299

  0.93

  12,111,994

  85,928

  0.71

  Bournemouth

  5,496,631

  43,585

  0.79

  5,532,530

  21,680

  0.39

  Bracknell Forest

  3,787,557

  13,079

  0.35

  3,899,460

  16,946

  0.43

  Bradford

  21,921,765

  357,869

  1.63

  20,822,223

  316,047

  1.52

  Brent

  8,491,833

  65,143

  0.77

  9,333,083

  56,144

  0.60

  Brighton and Hove

  7,140,966

  59,889

  0.84

  7,892,669

  75,869

  0.96

  Bristol, City of

  12,740,007

  153,001

  1.20

  12,638,508

  173,184

  1.37

  Bromley

  11,518,807

  54,438

  0.47

  11,965,363

  87,561

  0.73

  Buckinghamshire

  18,547,877

  51,341

  0.28

  19,108,430

  84,148

  0.44

  Bury

  7,786,809

  40,038

  0.51

  7,949,847

  37,419

  0.47

  Calderdale

  9,117,237

  46,840

  0.51

  9,108,847

  47,033

  0.52

  Cambridgeshire

  19,309,270

  105,432

  0.55

  20,308,069

  110,359

  0.54

  Camden

  5,377,029

  78,679

  1.46

  4,890,033

  55,645

  1.14

  Cheshire

  27,648,326

  137,638

  0.50

  27,850,790

  168,179

  0.60

  Cornwall

  19,103,370

  72,092

  0.38

  19,713,625

  77,577

  0.39

  Coventry

  12,977,784

  99,842

  0.77

  12,528,870

  71,501

  0.57

  Croydon

  11,982,517

  67,594

  0.56

  12,811,239

  110,841

  0.87

  Cumbria

  20,114,014

  67,279

  0.33

  20,279,090

  100,163

  0.49

  Darlington

  4,220,750

  31,946

  0.76

  4,015,669

  23,798

  0.59

  Derby City

  9,496,622

  76,289

  0.80

  9,776,185

  87,290

  0.89

  Derbyshire

  28,990,500

  184,011

  0.63

  30,650,557

  202,425

  0.66

  Devon

  24,941.506

  114,542

  0.46

  25,992,151

  154,447

  0.59

  Doncaster

  13,055,709

  149,394

  1.14

  12,885,981

  120,776

  0.94

  Dorset

  14,147,822

  56,849

  0.40

  14,544,725

  55,073

  0.38

  Dudley

  12,221,676

  46,843

  0.38

  13,630,374

  80,903

  0.59

  Durham

  20,105,892

  146,200

  0.73

  20,027,339

  73,511

  0.37

  Ealing

  9,864,678

  84,732

  0.86

  9,957,712

  48,907

  0.49

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  12,690,313

  66,481

  0.52

  13,492,330

  57,494

  0.43

  East Sussex

  16,296,427

  120,771

  0.74

  17,884,590

  148,004

  0.83

  Enfield

  11,731,951

  111,415

  0.95

  12,036,439

  173,070

  1.44

  Essex

  51,192,177

  292,106

  0.57

  52,313,880

  305,488

  0.58

  Gateshead

  7,741,720

  76,121

  0.98

  7,405,780

  42,292

  0.57

  Gloucestershire

  22,252,023

  67,411

  0.30

  22,707,564

  82,832

  0.36

  Greenwich

  8,612,526

  172,048

  2.00

  8,999,902

  166,073

  1.85

  Hackney

  6,386,670

  101,078

  1.58

  6,528,327

  105,774

  1.62

  Halton

  5,849,448

  53,627

  0.92

  5,438,109

  69,126

  1.27

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  3,481,002

  65,994

  1.90

  4,056,354

  48,180

  1.19

  Hampshire

  46,126,635

  244,954

  0.53

  47,696,466

  315.381

  0.66

  Haringey

  7,816,702

  128,095

  1.64

  8,201,203

  143,333

  1.75

  Harrow

  7,844,823

  43,429

  0.55

  7,781,906

  25,072

  0.32

  Hartlepool

  4,051,517

  53,341

  1.32

  4,307,027

  51,843

  1.20

  Havering

  9,427,217

  37,739

  0.40

  9,572,671

  37,431

  0.39

  Herefordshire

  6,546,757

  24,019

  0.37

  6,809,255

  31,673

  0.47

  Hertfordshire

  42,043,377

  180,011

  0.43

  43,498,050

  229,107

  0.53

  Hillingdon

  9,259,142

  97,442

  1.05

  10,170,299

  111,853

  1.10

  Hounslow

  8,416,806

  77,565

  0.92

  8,603,901

  95,439

  1.11

  Isle of Wight

  4,983,329

  20,365

  0.41

  5,110,221

  30,031

  0.59

  Isles of Scilly

  64,884

  121

  0.19

  63,326

  441

  0.70

  Islington

  6,191,369

  105,073

  1.70

  5,950,006

  80,662

  1.36

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2,381,581

  41,502

  1.74

  2,561,091

  24,846

  0.97

  Kent

  51,645,835

  238,420

  0.46

  55,108,122

  279,301

  0.51

  Kingston upon Hull, City of

  11,278,575

  222,041

  1.97

  10,656,454

  156,049

  1.46

  Kingston upon Thames

  4.781,603

  24,577

  0.51

  5,043,212

  17,616

  0.35

  Kirklees

  17,076,263

  172,467

  1.01

  16,922,012

  129,658

  0.77

  Knowsley

  7,353,050

  116,731

  1.59

  7,062,038

  112,257

  1.59

  580W
  half days lost due to unauthorised absence in (a) 1997–98 and (b) 2002–03 by local education authority. [146470]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 8 January 2004]: The information requested is shown as follows:
  581W

  Unauthorised absence in maintained primary and secondary schools in England, 1997/98 and 2002/03

  Academic year 1997/98

  Academic year 2002/03

  Total possible sessions

  Number of half days missed due to unauthorized absence

  Percentage of half days missed due to unauthorized absence

  Total possible sessions

  Number of half days missed due to unauthorized absence

  Percentage of half days missed due to unauthorized absence

  Lambeth

  6,616,896

  88,978

  1.34

  6,769,620

  62,317

  0.92

  Lancashire

  48,581,138

  258,625

  0.53

  48.954,065

  266,747

  0.54

  Leeds

  28,744,260

  337,757

  1.18

  28,933,535

  319,327

  1.10

  Leicester City

  12,734,281

  143,282

  1.13

  12,689,113

  194,712

  1.53

  Leicestershire

  26,006,408

  141,512

  0.54

  26,533,381

  174,417

  0.66

  Lewisham

  8,258,734

  150,844

  1.83

  8,709,699

  136,429

  1.57

  Lincolnshire

  24,181,115

  133,479

  0.55

  27,067,264

  138,489

  0.51

  Liverpool

  19,660,250

  267,289

  1.36

  18,892,558

  200,971

  1.06

  London, City of

  50,796

  976

  1.92

  54,342

  0

  0.00

  Luton

  8,026,192

  58,169

  0.72

  8,507,459

  54,672

  0.64

  Manchester

  17,161,916

  300,544

  1.75

  16,811,825

  200,799

  1.19

  Medway

  11,210,947

  71,279

  0.64

  11,633,094

  60,413

  0.52

  Merton

  5,779,338

  80,513

  1.39

  5,441.153

  41,819

  0.77

  Middlesbrough

  6,305,740

  61,431

  0.97

  5,983,567

  40,771

  0.68

  Milton Keynes

  8,583,082

  41,480

  0.48

  9,305,084

  40,801

  0.44

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  10,027,943

  86,336

  0.86

  9,579,712

  83,829

  0.88

  Newham

  11,225,046

  281,582

  2.51

  11,719,076

  150,900

  1.29

  Norfolk

  27,851,813

  169,643

  0.61

  30,114,741

  206,752

  0.69

  North East Lincolnshire

  7,461,441

  83,474

  1.12

  7,303,691

  67,923

  0.93

  North Lincolnshire

  6,833,885

  45,071

  0.66

  6,678,118

  36,530

  0.55

  North Somerset

  7,101,334

  42,540

  0.60

  7,457,736

  51,788

  0.69

  North Tyneside

  7,893,708

  35,662

  0.45

  7,806,945

  37,468

  0.48

  North Yorkshire

  22,193,981

  60,788

  0.27

  23,726,431

  83,564

  0.35

  Northamptonshire

  26,199,295

  166,709

  0.64

  27,575,895

  197,952

  0.72

  Northumberland

  13,095,643

  48,321

  0.37

  12,637,969

  36,493

  0.29

  Nottingham City

  10,522,642

  234,731

  2.23

  9,902,153

  132,671

  1.34

  Nottinghamshire

  30,194,615

  262,053

  0.87

  31,091,195

  279,326

  0.90

  Oldham

  11,049,488

  124,707

  1.13

  10,797,455

  103,252

  0.96

  Oxfordshire

  21,882,823

  174,275

  0.80

  22,084,106

  145,787

  0.66

  Peterborough City

  7,314,293

  56,346

  0.77

  7,527,333

  51,405

  0.68

  Plymouth

  10,407,858

  61,045

  0.59

  10,018,234

  41,800

  0.42

  Poole

  4,894,319

  27,561

  0.56

  5,053,137

  33,897

  0.67

  Portsmouth

  6,978,696

  84,443

  1.21

  6,887,267

  74,618

  1.08

  Reading

  4,501,271

  51,138

  1.14

  4,136,438

  42,177

  1.02

  Redbridge

  9,567,710

  58,420

  0.61

  10,443,598

  76,663

  0.73

  Redcar and Cleveland

  6,476,772

  44,796

  0.69

  6,529,839

  39,005

  0.60

  Richmond upon Thames

  5,387,735

  26,734

  0.50

  5,220,053

  56,648

  1.09

  Rochdale

  9,343,930

  102,814

  1.10

  9,479,481

  90,003

  0.95

  Rotherham

  11,850,034

  120,999

  1.02

  11,956,554

  100,738

  0.84

  Rutland

  1,403,662

  5,284

  0.38

  1,425,488

  4,570

  0.32

  Salford

  9,059,496

  100,157

  1.11

  8,984,375

  106,531

  1.19

  Sandwell

  12,717,785

  130,452

  1.03

  12,772,004

  121,645

  0.95

  Sefton

  12,468,268

  54,426

  0.44

  11,857,845

  51,244

  0.43

  Sheffield

  19,498,865

  299,826

  1.54

  20,013,151

  254,156

  1.27

  Shropshire

  10,593,845

  43,335

  0.41

  11,182,692

  31,787

  0.28

  Slough

  4,326,982

  33,062

  0.76

  4,920,858

  52,245

  1.06

  Solihull

  9,534,393

  32,823

  0.34

  9,504,941

  52,417

  0.55

  Somerset

  18,108,993

  68,241

  0.38

  19,244,019

  85,716

  0.45

  South Gloucestershire

  9,731,927

  54,168

  0.56

  10,708,139

  73,654

  0.69

  South Tyneside

  6,721,986

  13,403

  0.20

  6,299,568

  25,145

  0.40

  Southampton

  8,370,654

  83,610

  1.00

  7,973,689

  68,754

  0.86

  Southend-on-Sea

  6,357,832

  64,139

  1.01

  6,756,687

  63,343

  0.94

  Southwark

  8,364,744

  169,937

  2.03

  8,962,748

  157,226

  1.75

  St. Helens

  7,672,838

  25,640

  0.33

  7,687,463

  53,720

  0.70

  Staffordshire

  33,514,654

  117,250

  0.35

  34,312,098

  151,716

  0.44

  Stockport

  11,448,314

  85,358

  0.75

  11,585,776

  62,960

  0.54

  Stockton on Tees

  8,663,358

  36,079

  0.42

  8,255,696

  36,991

  0.45

  Stoke on Trent

  10,021,352

  74,166

  0.74

  9,675,615

  106,045

  1.10

  Suffolk

  24,952,935

  87,289

  0.35

  26,223,004

  186,328

  0.71

  Sunderland

  13,251,439

  83,350

  0.63

  12,607,404

  65,400

  0.52

  Surrey

  34,191,515

  105,248

  0.31

  35,480,270

  208,644

  0.59

  Sutton

  7,035,996

  27,419

  0.39

  7,587,605

  35,024

  0.46

  Swindon

  7,818,601

  47,772

  0.61

  7,896,788

  32,009

  0.41

  Tameside

  10,187,487

  69,146

  0.68

  10,062,696

  39,554

  0.39

  Telford and Wrekin

  6,725,805

  48,127

  0.72

  7,047,540

  26,477

  0.38

  Thurrock

  5,806,143

  60,881

  1.05

  5,889,829

  58,493

  0.99

  Torbay

  4,688,784

  21,167

  0.45

  4,956,923

  43,381

  0.88

  Tower Hamlets

  8,452,799

  184,708

  2.19

  8,914,070

  138,820

  1.56

  Trafford

  9,260,873

  47,595

  0.51

  9,253,299

  34,771

  0.38

  Wakefield

  14,043,287

  102,408

  0.73

  14,085,535

  106,245

  0.75

  Walsall

  12,284,583

  105,354

  0.86

  12,241,652

  80.325

  0.66

  Waltham Forest

  8,773,590

  125,645

  1.43

  8,983,932

  81,085

  0.90

  582W 583W

  Unauthorised absence in maintained primary and secondary schools in England, 1997/98 and 2002/03

  Academic year 1997/98

  Academic year 2002/03

  Total possible sessions

  Number of half days missed due to unauthorized absence

  Percentage of half days missed due to unauthorized absence

  Total possible sessions

  Number of half days missed due to unauthorized absence

  Percentage of half days missed due to unauthorized absence

  Wandsworth

  6,660,268

  66,109

  0.99

  6,749,010

  52,766

  0.78

  Warrington

  8,723,569

  33,278

  0.38

  8,723,891

  41,370

  0.47

  Warwickshire

  20,146,407

  86,938

  0.43

  19,977,522

  91,302

  0.46

  West Berkshire

  6,162,872

  17,882

  0.29

  6,268,303

  28,747

  0.46

  West Sussex

  26,795,598

  100,465

  0.37

  28,012,548

  130,965

  0.47

  Westminster, City of

  4,388,316

  91,418

  2.08

  4,515,826

  48,561

  1.08

  Wigan

  14,582,708

  108,771

  0.75

  13,789,031

  57,062

  0.41

  Wiltshire

  16,265,723

  68,496

  0.42

  17,041,153

  74,818

  0.44

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  4,895,304

  17,719

  0.36

  4,981,077

  27,205

  0.55

  Wirral

  14,086,710

  87,329

  0.62

  13,900,770

  65,200

  0.47

  Wokingham

  6,246,147

  21,320

  0.34

  6,078,808

  24,143

  0.40

  Wolverhampton

  9,695,286

  109,925

  1.13

  10,263,693

  82,080

  0.80

  Worcestershire

  20,828,048

  114,354

  0.55

  21,152,365

  105,058

  0.50

  York, City of

  5.753,137

  26,843

  0.47

  6,488,028

  49,413

  0.76

  Total

  1,944,289,663

  14,673,753

  0.75

  1,987,988,695

  14,355,433

  0.72

  Notes:

  1 Figures relate to maintained primary and secondary schools but exclude maintained special schools and CTCs.

  2. Figures cover absences between September 1997 and May 1998, and September 2002 and May 2003.

  School Fruit Scheme
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much the Government have spent centrally on administering the National School Fruit Scheme in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [141789]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department of Health spent £0.75 million in 2001–02 and £0.3 million in 2002–03 on administering and evaluating National School Fruit Scheme pilots, including the cost of the fruit. In 2002–03 and 2003–04 the lottery-funded New Opportunities Fund has been supporting a scaling-up of the original pilots region by region with £42 million. From 2004–05 the scheme will be rolled out to all local education authority infant schools in England with full funding by the Department of Health.

  School Meals
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) if he will make a statement on provision of school meals by Essex county council; [146625]

  (2) what statutory requirements there are on local education authorities to provide school meals; and if he will make a statement. [146627]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Local education authorities have a duty to provide free and paid for school meals that meet nutritional standards. Where a school has a delegated budget for meals, the governing body takes on these responsibilities. From April 2000, funding for school meals was delegated to all secondary schools. Primary and special schools can opt for delegation.

  From April 2004, Essex county council will delegate the budget for primary school meals. Primary school governing bodies will have the freedom to choose what form school meals should take, including the type of dishes served and the ingredients which are used. They can also choose the suppliers or providers for the school meal service.

  Specialist Schools
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools in each local education authority area have specialist school status 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. [145430]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is set out in the following table.

  Designated specialist schools receive a one-off £100,000 capital grant and £126 per pupil per annum for four years.

  Specialist schools funding by LEA report for 2003–04

  £

  LEA Name

  Total Funding 2003–04 (£)

  Number of specialist schools

  Barking & Dagenham, LB of

  637,982

  4

  Barnet, LB of

  1,400,119

  10

  Barnsley

  631,933

  4

  Bath & North East Somerset

  1,385,143

  10

  Bedfordshire

  1,060,517

  7

  Bexley, LB of

  609,235

  5

  Birmingham

  4,861,060

  38

  Blackburn with Darwen

  528,500

  4

  Blackpool

  603,594

  4

  Bolton

  1,651,324

  9

  Bournemouth

  608,875

  4

  Bracknell Forest

  301,000

  2

  Bradford

  1,781,843

  11

  Brent, LB of

  1,302,371

  9

  Brighton and Hove

  841,701

  5

  Bristol, City of

  789,803

  6

  Bromley, LB of

  1,425,131

  9

  Buckinghamshire

  1,885,833

  14

  Calderdale

  1,046,325

  7

  Cambridgeshire

  2,407,356

  18

  Camden, LB of

  680,375

  5

  Cheshire

  3,011,815

  21

  City of London

  0

  0

  Cornwall

  2,320,077

  16

  Coventry

  968,516

  6

  Croydon, LB of

  735,258

  6

  Cumbria

  3,540,915

  24

  Darlington

  580,922

  5

  Derby, City of

  629,194

  4

  Derbyshire

  2,343,109

  16

  585W

  £

  LEA Name

  Total Funding 2003–04 (£)

  Number of specialist schools

  Devon

  3,270,554

  20

  Doncaster

  1,535,445

  9

  Dorset

  1,919,353

  14

  Dudley

  1,198,763

  9

  Durham

  2,550,898

  20

  Ealing, LB of

  1,267,111

  8

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  1,464,165

  9

  East Sussex

  2,577,255

  18

  Enfield, LB of

  328,699

  2

  Essex

  7,217,790

  46

  Gateshead

  751,263

  5

  Gloucestershire

  3,926,911

  28

  Greenwich, LB of

  700,126

  6

  Hackney, LB of

  779,704

  7

  Halton

  413,875

  3

  Hammersmith & Fulham, LB of

  284,923

  2

  Hampshire

  4,338,545

  30

  Haringey, LB of

  648,152

  5

  Harrow, LB of

  548,165

  6

  Hartlepool

  411,750

  3

  Havering, LB of

  1,188,314

  8

  Herefordshire

  692,196

  5

  Hertfordshire

  5,579,233

  37

  Hillingdon, LB of

  926,375

  6

  Hounslow, LB of

  992,544

  6

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  Isle of Wight

  254,875

  2

  Islington, LB of

  381,593

  3

  Kensington & Chelsea, RB of

  257,858

  2

  Kent

  5,207,511

  34

  Kingston upon Hull, city of

  613,000

  4

  Kingston-u-Thames, RB of

  976,994

  6

  Kirklees

  1,519,864

  11

  Knowsley

  381,375

  3

  Lambeth, LB of

  613,353

  5

  Lancashire

  4,487,863

  33

  Leeds

  3,227,501

  21

  Leicester City

  1,016,220

  8

  Leicestershire

  2,048,541

  13

  Lewisham, LB of

  366,896

  2

  Lincolnshire

  4,553,025

  38

  Liverpool

  2,392,400

  16

  Luton

  256,500

  2

  Manchester

  1,769,033

  11

  Medway

  781,750

  6

  Merton, LB of

  125,000

  1

  Middlesbrough

  707,465

  5

  Milton Keynes

  950,282

  6

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1,334,875

  8

  Newham, LB of

  1,111,689

  7

  Norfolk

  2,955,519

  22

  North East Lincolnshire

  719,232

  5

  North Lincolnshire

  745,308

  7

  North Somerset

  1,063,262

  7

  North Tyneside

  956,324

  7

  North Yorkshire

  2,584,621

  17

  Northamptonshire

  2,367,376

  17

  Northumberland

  1,119,750

  9

  Nottingham, City of

  652,711

  5

  Nottinghamshire

  2,789,941

  19

  Oldham

  844,542

  6

  Oxfordshire

  2,946,909

  18

  Peterborough, City of

  791,218

  5

  Plymouth, City of

  1,338,399

  10

  Poole

  832,872

  6

  Portsmouth

  598,918

  4

  Reading

  338,489

  2

  Redbridge, LB of

  1,520,892

  10

  Redcar & Cleveland

  283,625

  2

  Richmond-upon-Thames, LB of

  583,125

  4

  Rochdale

  721,449

  5

  Rotherham

  1,368,703

  8

  Rutland

  190,125

  2

  Salford

  401,876

  3

  Sandwell

  947,509

  6

  Sefton

  823,534

  7

  Sheffield

  1,798,106

  12

  Shropshire

  2,201,918

  17

  Slough

  364,125

  4

  586W

  £

  LEA Name

  Total Funding 2003–04 (£)

  Number of specialist schools

  Solihull

  1,240,467

  8

  Somerset

  3,477,083

  25

  South Gloucestershire

  1,418,522

  8

  South Tyneside

  297,625

  2

  Southampton

  615,152

  4

  Southend-on-Sea

  955,243

  7

  Southwark, LB of

  566,474

  5

  St. Helens

  803,417

  5

  Staffordshire

  2,752,296

  20

  Stockport

  512,610

  3

  Stockton-on-Tees

  804,226

  6

  Stoke-on-Trent

  938,782

  7

  Suffolk

  2,459,391

  18

  Sunderland

  1,613,043

  10

  Surrey

  3,398,169

  23

  Sutton, LB of

  930,155

  6

  Swindon

  562,019

  3

  Tameside

  742,838

  5

  Telford and Wrekin

  559,060

  4

  Thurrock

  589,584

  4

  Torbay

  493,875

  3

  Tower Hamlets, LB of

  733,994

  6

  Trafford

  1,569,225

  12

  Wakefield

  1,855,223

  11

  Walsall

  2,364,868

  15

  Waltham Forest, LB of

  680,990

  5

  Wandsworth. LB of

  834,442

  6

  Warrington

  949,121

  6

  Warwickshire

  2,528,359

  18

  West Berkshire

  1,433,404

  10

  West Sussex

  2,386,266

  14

  Westminster, LB of

  352,000

  3

  Wigan

  1,597,818

  12

  Wiltshire

  1,821,207

  13

  Windsor & Maidenhead, RB of

  783,000

  4

  Wirral

  1,283,875

  10

  Wokingham

  599,125

  4

  Wolverhampton

  998,174

  8

  Worcestershire

  2,134,630

  15

  York, City of

  846,255

  7

  Teaching Methods
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 15 December 2003,Official Report, column 669W, if he will make a statement on the relationship between ability grouping and (a) personalised learning and (b) teaching tailored to the needs of pupils; and what the role of central government is in implementing these teaching practices. [145527]

  Mr. Miliband
  Ability grouping is one measure by which schools can personalise the learning and tailor teaching to the needs of pupils. However, it is possible to identify a list of benefits and limitations for the main kinds of ability grouping at the level of the institution, teacher and pupil. It is for schools within the context of their particular circumstances to develop and determine for themselves which forms of ability grouping have the most positive impact for different groups of pupils within different learning contexts (such as different subject areas).

  Through the primary and Key Stage 3 national strategies we will be making available to teachers later this year support in assessment for learning techniques and approaches to promote personalised learning.

  Toilet Training
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the number of children who have been adequately toilet trained prior to entry to school. [146728]

  Margaret Hodge
  My Department has not assessed how many children have been adequately toilet trained prior to entry to school.

  Value Added Improvements
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he is taking to address difficulties in assessing value added improvements in secondary schools where part of their intake have not previously been evaluated in terms of SATS and teacher assessment. [146560]

  Mr. Miliband
  Value added measures for schools can only be calculated using existing data. Given that all pupils of compulsory school age attending maintained mainstream schools follow the National Curriculum, there are only a very small number who were not assessed at the end of the earlier key stage—for example, only 3 per cent. of 15-year-olds had no prior attainment data at Key Stage 3 in the 2003 performance tables.

  Though most schools will be unaffected, we accept that a small number might have a significant proportion of pupils with no prior attainment data—for example, pupils from overseas. This is why we publish a coverage indicator in the performance tables which shows the percentage of pupils on which the value added calculation is based.

HEALTH

  Genital Mutilation
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate the Government have made of the number of women who have undergone genital mutilation in(a) St. Helens and (b) Merseyside in each of the last five years; and what estimate has been made of the total number of women in the UK who have undergone genital mutilation. [146045]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  No estimate has been made of the number of women who have undergone female genital mutilation in St. Helens and Merseyside in the last five years or the national total.

  Access to GPs
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what right of free access British citizens have to treatment at a GP practice other than that at which they are registered if(a) they are registered with a different practice but are resident in the UK and (b) they are UK citizens living outside the UK. [146355]

  Mr. Hutton
  Any person is entitled to receive emergency or immediately necessary treatment from any general practitioner if that treatment is necessary. In addition, anyone who is temporarily in an area for more than 24 hours but less than three months, including a588W
  United Kingdom citizen visiting from overseas, may register as a temporary resident to receive national health service primary medical services.

  Accident and Emergency Departments (Cambridgeshire)
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many admissions to accident and emergency departments in Cambridgeshire there were in each of the past 12 quarters, broken down by hospital. [146448]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Information on the number of admissions to accident and emergency departments is published quarterly for each national health service trust, and is available from the Department's website at www.doh.gsi.gov.uk/hospitalactivity.

  Copies of this information are also available in the Library.

  The only acute NHS trust in Cambridgeshire is Addenbrooke's NHS Trust.

  Accident and Emergency Nurses
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many registered nurses work in general accident and emergency units in England. [145666]

  Mr. Hutton
  Separate information is not collected on the number of nurses employed in accident and emergency units in the national health service. Qualified accident and emergency nurses are included in the 'Acute, elderly and general' area of work. As at September 2002 there were 187,439 nurses employed in the acute, elderly and general area of work in the NHS, an increase of 9,535 over the previous year and 27,505 since 1997.

  ADHD UK Alliance
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on how grants made by his Department to the ADHD UK Alliance have been spent. [143804]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 16 December 2003]: The Department of Health has given the ADHD UK Alliance a one-year grant of £25,000 as a contribution towards the central administrative costs of their activities in England. This grant supports our priorities in child and adolescent mental health by resourcing an organisation, which in turn, will help the development of the many small support groups in the attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) field. We have also previously supported the ADHD UK Alliance when they were part of the organisation, Contact a Family.

  Agency Staff
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost of agency(a) nurses and (b) doctors has been to the NHS in Huntingdon in each year since 1999. [146444]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information is not collected in the format requested. The tables show the available information regarding the national health service trusts that cover the Huntingdon constituency.
  589W

  (a) Non-NHS 'Nurses'1 NHS expenditure in Huntingdon: 1999–2000 to 2002–032

  £

  Non-NHS 'nurses'1

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–032

  Hinchingbrook Healthcare NHS Trust

  900,387

  887,916

  965,681

  256,352

  Cambs and Peterborough MH Partnership Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  2,237,493

  Cambridgeshire Health Authority

  0

  0

  0

  n/a

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire Strategic Health Authority

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  Huntingdonshire Primary Care Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  0

  Total

  900,387

  887,916

  965,681

  2,493,845

  1 'Nurses' = Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting Staff.

  2 2002–03 data are provisional.

  (b) Non-NHS 'Doctors'1 NHS expenditure in Huntingdon: 1999–2000 to 2002–032

  £

  Non-NHS 'Doctors'1

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–032

  Hinchingbrook Healthcare NHS Trust

  369,121

  404,724

  530,833

  477,535

  Cambs and Peterborough MH Partnership Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  880,861

  Cambridgeshire Health Authority

  615

  133

  0

  n/a

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire Strategic Health Authority

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  Huntingdonshire Primary Care Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  269,952

  Total

  369,736

  404,857

  530,833

  1,628,348

  1 'Doctors' = Medical Staff.

  2 2002–03 data are provisional.

  Sources:

  1. Annual Financial Returns of NHS Trusts 1999–2000 to 2002–03.

  2. Annual Financial Returns of Health Authorities 1999–2000 to 2001–02.

  3. Annual Financial Returns of Strategic Health Authorities 2002–03.

  4. Annual Financial Returns of Primary Care Trusts 2000–01 to 2002—03.

  Approved Treatments
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to ensure that patients are not taken off treatments which have not been approved by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence for non-medical reasons and transferred to those which have been so approved. [145387]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  This is a matter which needs to be resolved at a local level according to the individual circumstances. Clinicians have a prime responsibility to prescribe treatments appropriate for the individual patient. In doing so, they should take full account of National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidance and the evidence on which it is based.

  Ashford and St. Peter's Hospitals NHS Trust
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress being made towards the implementation of the Ashford and St. Peter's Hospitals NHS Trust Franchise Plan. [146489]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 8 January 2004]: Further to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), on 20 May 2003, Official Report, col.736W, I understand from the Surrey and Sussex Strategic Health Authority that significant progress continues to be made on the franchise plan for Ashford and St. Peter's Hospitals National Health Service Trust as follows:
  Ongoing implementation of the £10 million capital programme, including completion of the day case surgery expansion, new ward which is part of a medical assessment unit scheme and new child care nursery at Ashford
  Refurbishment of the maternity unit and a new playscheme at St. Peter's
  14 per cent. increase in qualified nursing staff
  590W
  Year on year stability in the workforce
  Provision of more affordable housing for key worker staffing under Government schemes
  Improved collaborative working with local primary care trusts, social services and local authorities
  Achievement of Improving Working Lives (IWL) 'Practice' Status
  Moving from being a zero star in 2001 to two star trust in 2003

  Since April 2003, in line with the franchise plan, Glenn Douglas has been the Trust's Chief Executive.

  Ashford Hospital, Middlesex
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress being made towards finalising the contract with Mercury Health Ltd to provide and run a diagnostic treatment centre at Ashford Hospital, Middlesex; and how many procedures per year he expects to be carried out at the new centre. [146502]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 8 January 2004]: The Department, working with local National Health Service sponsors, is making good progress towards finalising a contract for the provision of an independent sector treatment centre at Ashford. The treatment centre plans to provide treatment for 1,711 patients on average annually.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether Ashford Hospital, Middlesex, has an Accident and Emergency Department. [146543]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 8 January 2004]: Ashford Hospital, Middlesex, which is part of the Ashford and St. Peter's Hospitals National Health Service Trust, has an emergency department which deals

  591W
  with all medical emergencies and walking wounded. The accident and emergency department at St.Peter's Hospital in Chertsey handles trauma cases.

  Assistive Technology
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how assistive technology research and development are being monitored and evaluated. [146228]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  An annual report on progress made in Government-funded research and development relating to assistive technology is required pursuant to Section 22 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. The report for 2002 was laid before the House on 27 November 2003. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Audiology
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action the Government is taking to guarantee that everyone in Dorset who can benefit from a digital hearing aid provided on the NHS will have received one by April 2005; [145050]

  (2) how many people in Dorset he estimates may benefit from digital hearing aids; and what proportion of these will have been fitted with digital hearing aids by 1 April (a) 2004 and (b) 2005. [145051]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 18 December 2003]: The question of whether someone can benefit from a digital hearing aid is one of clinical judgment. The Modernising Hearing Aid Services Project, in which the Government are investing £94 million for the two financial years 2001–04 and 2004–05, will ensure that all audiology departments in England will be fitting digital hearing aids routinely by April 2005.

  BCG Vaccination
  Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children are awaiting BCG vaccination as a result of the interruption in its administration between August 2002 and the beginning of 2003; and if he will make a statement. [144389]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 18 December 2003]: No schoolchildren should have missed out on the opportunity of receiving BCG vaccination.

  There were no supplies of BCG vaccine from August to November 2002, following Evans Vaccines' voluntarily withdrawal of all batches of their BCG as a precautionary measure after discovering, during stability testing, that a number of batches did not comply with the requirements of their registered specifications for potency during its shelf life. This was a decision taken by the company outside of our control and was wholly unexpected.

  However, district immunisation co-ordinators were asked to arrange catch-up programmes for children in their areas who may have missed out receiving their BCG immunisation once supplies were available from 25 November 2002.

  Blood
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the safety of blood plasma and other blood products sourced in the USA following the positive testing for BSE in the USA; [146333]

  (2) what additional safeguards he has put in place to ensure the safety of US-sourced blood plasma following the confirmation of BSE in US cattle. [146334]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The arrangements currently in place for importing blood plasma from the United States are based on the objective to secure long term supplies of non-United Kingdom blood plasma to ensure that the global plasma shortage would not reduce to national health service patients the availability of life saving plasma products, such as immunoglobulins and clotting factors.

  The NHS has been using US sourced plasma since 1998 because of the unknown and unquantifiable risk of transmission of vCJD through blood. The US was the only country able to supply the quality and quantity of plasma required. The US also has a well established pool of donors, a well regulated environment and a developed collection industry. We are aware of the one case of BSE reported in the US, which is considered to be a negligible risk to the safety of the blood supply. This case is not in itself a reason to alter current arrangements but we will continue to monitor the situation closely.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list regulatory and advisory bodies responsible to his Department dealing with blood safety. [145695]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The regulatory and advisory bodies responsible to the Department of Health for blood safety are the National Blood Authority and the Government expert Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Blood and Tissues for Transplantation.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what statistics his Department collates on the incidence of blood borne diseases in recipients of blood products; and if he will make a statement. [1454481]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Statistics on the incidence of blood borne diseases in recipients of blood products are not collected centrally.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when blood testing for contaminated blood product-induced infections was started(a) with consent and (b) without consent; and if he will make a statement. [143396]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The safety of blood and blood products used in the National Health Service is of paramount importance. The current high levels of safety are achieved by screening out potential high-risk donors and then further testing of every unit of donated blood for Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C and HIV before it is released to hospitals. Diagnostic tests became available for Hepatitis B in 1972, for Hepatitis C in 1991 and for HIV in 1984. It is a matter for health professionals to ensure
  593W
  that consent for testing is obtained. Guidance on consent to examination and treatment is available on the Department's web-site at www.doh.gov.uk/consent.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the(a) methodology and (b) effectiveness of screening for infections of (i) blood products and (ii) whole blood to be used by the NHS; and if he will make a statement; [145451]

  (2) what assessment he has made of blood products from high infection risk groups being used in the UK; and if he will make a statement. [145458]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The National Blood Authority (NBA) and the Health Protection Agency have an infectious surveillance scheme that monitors the effectiveness of the blood screening programme and the methodology employed. The NBA also complies with the annually updated expert guidelines produced by the Council of Europe and with the requirements laid down in the European Union Directive 2002/98 on setting standards of quality and safety for the collection, testing, processing, storage and distribution of human blood and blood components.

  The Government's Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Blood and Tissues for Transplantation provides expert advice to the UK Blood Transfusion Services on blood screening tests. The latest "Serious Hazards of Transfusion" report, published on 17 July 2003, indicated that the risks of transfusion transmitted infections in the United Kingdom are exceedingly small.

  BSE
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the risk of vaccines sourced from bovine products in the USA being an agent for transmitting BSE. [146344]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency has initiated a risk assessment to assess any potential impact on United Kingdom licensed medicinal products, including vaccines, that are manufactured using bovine derived materials from the United States following the announcement of the first case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in a cow in the USA.

  Cancer Prevention
  Ms Munn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action he is taking to improve cancer prevention in England; [145455]

  (2) how much money his Department allocates to primary prevention of breast cancer; [145456]

  (3) how much his Department spent on primary prevention of breast cancer in 2002–03. [145457]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department funds an extensive health improvement and prevention programme aimed chiefly at preventing cancer and coronary heart disease, which are the two main causes of mortality.
  594W
  Health improvement and prevention work is also undertaken directly by primary care trusts (PCTs). From April 2003, 75 per cent. of the national health service budget has been devolved directly to PCTs allowing them control of the resources to deliver on both national and local priorities, including cancer.

  Funding for programmes on tobacco control and smoking cessation, improving nutrition and diet and increasing levels of physical activity all contribute not only to cancer prevention, but also to preventing coronary heart disease. It is not possible to identify the amounts in these programmes that contribute solely to cancer prevention or to the prevention of any particular form of cancer.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the Government provided towards the cost of care home places per person in(a) England, (b) the West Midlands and (c) Coventry in the last year for which figures are available. [144385]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 17 December 2003]: The Government do not directly allocate funds to local authorities towards the cost of care home places. Rather it provides general funding, distributed by the formula spending share, and revenue grants and capital resources for specific purposes. Personal social services funding for 2004–05 was set out in the Local Authority Social Services Letter LASSL(2003)8 of 19 November 2003. The LASSL can be accessed at: http://www. doh.gov.uk/publications/coinh.html

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nursing and care home places meet statutory requirements for people over 65 with sensory impairment, broken down by local authority. [146733]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information requested is not available by local authority. Information broken down by National Care Standards Commission (NCSC) area office is shown in the table. In applying the standards through registration, the NCSC seeks evidence of a commitment to continuous improvement, quality services, support, accommodation and facilities which will assure a good quality of life and health for service users.

  At 1 October 2003, the latest date for which information is available, there were a total number of 182 care homes registered for sensory impairment for elderly people. These homes provided a total number of 1,582 places.

  Breakdown by NCSC area office

  Area office

  No of services

  No of places

  South Shields

  32

  116

  Leicester

  41

  400

  Lincoln

  1

  1

  Somerset

  1

  0

  Gloucester

  3

  15

  St. Austell

  2

  10

  Avon

  1

  22

  Exeter

  2

  22

  South Devon

  3

  88

  Worcester

  2

  34

  Coventry

  1

  13

  Birmingham

  2

  98

  Halesowen

  1

  1

  595W

  Breakdown by NCSC area office

  Area office

  No of services

  No of places

  Ashton Under Lyne

  36

  120

  Manchester

  2

  0

  Bolton

  2

  3

  North Lanes

  1

  38

  Penrith

  1

  36

  South West London

  2

  44

  Harrow

  1

  0

  Southampton

  3

  90

  Oxford

  1

  2

  Purrey

  29

  179

  Eastbourne

  1

  44

  Worthing

  1

  2

  Hertfordshire

  2

  57

  Cambridge

  2

  5

  North Essex

  2

  60

  South Essex

  1

  25

  Hessle

  1

  21

  Leeds

  1

  6

  Sheffield

  1

  30

  Total

  182

  1,582

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Government's strategy for ensuring that there are sufficient care and nursing home places which meet statutory requirements for people over 65 with sensory impairment to satisfy demand. [146734]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Government has made available substantial increases in the level of funding provided for social services in recent years. Between 1996–97 and 2002–03, the overall level of funding has increased by 20 per cent., an average real terms annual increase of around three per cent. We intend to increase further resources to social services for personal social services by an annual average of six per cent, in real terms from 2003–04 to 2005–06.

  It is for local councils to use these extra resources to ensure that the right amount and range of care is made available, taking account of local circumstances and priorities.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many publicly-funded care home places there were in Huntingdon in each year since 1999. [146449]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The table shows the number of local authority (LA) staffed care home places in Cambridgeshire, as at 31 March, for the years 1999 to 2001.

  Figures for later years have been collected by the National Care Standards Commission, but comparable details broken down by LA are not available.

  Information on the number of care homes places in Huntingdon is not available.

  Number of local authority staffed care home places in 31 March 1999 to 2001

  Rounded numbers

  Number of places

  1999

  690

  2000

  610

  2001

  550

  Source:

  RA

  Children's Nurses
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many community and outreach children's nurses were registered in 2002–03 in England; [145665]

  (2)how many paediatric (a) oncology and (b) intensive care nurses were registered in 2002–03 in (i) England and (ii) Wales; [145693]

  (3) how many special baby care and neonatal intensive care nurses were registered in 2002–03 in (a) England and (b) Wales. [145694]

  Mr.Hutton
  The information is not collected centrally.

  Information for Wales is a matter for the Welsh Assembly.

  Communicable Diseases
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, (1) if he will list for each(a) strategic health authority and (b) primary care trust the number of consultants in communicable diseases in each year since 1996; [144789]

  (2) if he will list for each (a) strategic health authority and (b) primary care trust the three month vacancy figures for consultants in communicable diseases in each year since 1996. [144790]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of consultants in communicable diseases, or communicable disease control (CDC) is not collected by the Department.

  The main specialties under which CDC falls are public health medicine and microbiology and virology.

  Information relating to the number of consultants in public health medicine and microbiology and virology in each strategic health authority and primary care trust since 1996 has been placed in the Library.

  Vacancy data has only been collected by the Department since 1999. Between 1999 and 2001, only a limited number of specialties were collected. 2002 is the first year when a significant number of key specialties were individually collected. Available data has been placed in the Library.

  Compensation
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much compensation was paid to patients and relatives by the NHS(a) in Cambridgeshire and (b) in England in each year since 1990. [146438]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Debt
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money is owed within the NHS; by whom; and to whom it is owed. [144945]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested will be placed in the Library.

  Departmental information Campaigns
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much his Department spent on information campaigns and advertising in 2002–03. [145286]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In 2002–03, £34.89 million was spent on information campaigns and advertising commissioned by the Department's communications directorate.

  Doctors' Practice (South Ockenden)
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will investigate the circumstances relating to the decision of Doctors Leighton, Williams, Khraishi and Ghannam to close their branch surgery in South Road, South Ockendon, Essex; and if he will make a statement on the ability of the Thurrock Primary Care Trust to facilitate a relocation of patients to other doctors within the time frame dictated by the doctors' decision to close their branch practice; [146556]

  (2) if he will investigate the circumstances relating to the decision of Doctors Leighton, Williams, Khraishi and Ghannam to close their branch surgery in South Road, South Ockendon, Essex in relation to the period of notice given to individual patients to find alternative GP practices; [146558]

  (3) if he will investigate the circumstances relating to the decision of Doctors Leighton, Williams, Khraishi and Ghannam to close their branch surgery in South Road, South Ockendon, Essex in relation to the method of selecting patients no longer to be served by the practice. [146559]

  Dr. Ladyman
  I have no plans to investigate the circumstances relating to the decision of Doctors Leighton, Williams, Khraishi and Ghannam to close their branch surgery in South Road, South Ockendon, Essex.

  The Government's policy of 'Shifting the Balance of Power' means that the configuration of local services is a matter for the local national health service, working in partnership with its local community.

  I am informed by Essex Strategic Health Authority that Doctor Leighton and Partners advised 180 patients during mid December 2003 that they intended to close the South Road Branch Surgery in South Ockendon, during February 2004, and invited those 180 patients to find another general practitioner (GP) by 19 January 2004. This complies with the requirement outlined in the regulations for the practice to give 30 days notice of their intention to remove any patients from their list.

  I am also advised that Thurrock Primary Care Trust is making every effort to ensure that the displaced patients find another GP by 19 January 2004.

  The patients that Thurrock PCT has selected for relocation to alternative GP practices, are those who live the furthest distance from the main surgery in Aveley. These patients are located at the far north of the South Ockendon area and north of the branch surgery in South Road. The period of notice given to individual patients was given in writing by the PCT in a letter dated 28 December 2003.
  598W
  I am advised via Essex SHA that Thurrock PCT has worked with both this practice and the local medical committee to consider possible alternatives in order to avoid the closure of the branch surgery. Thurrock PCT wrote to the patients on 28 December 2003 advising them of the impending closure of the branch surgery which detailed information and advice on the support available to them in registering with a new practice.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what national guidelines or constraints apply to general practitioners in relation to the ratio of doctors to patients; whether these were exceeded by the practice of Doctors Leighton, Williams, Khraishi and Ghannam prior to their decision to close their branch surgery in South Road, South Ockendon. Essex; and if he will list those alternative general practitioners within the vicinity who have vacancies on their patients' list, stating in each case the number of new patients he or she is permitted to admit to his or her list. [146628]

  Dr. Ladyman
  According to Regulation 24(2) of the NHS (General Medical Services) Regulations 1992, the maximum number of persons on a doctor's list shall be:

  (a) 3,500, for a doctor carrying on practice otherwise than as an assistant or in a partnership;

  (b) 4,500 for a doctor carrying on practice in partnership, subject to a maximum average of 3,500 for each of the partners in the practice,

  and, where the doctor employs an assistant, such further number not exceeding 2,000 for each assistant as the primary care trust, or, on appeal. the Secretary of State, may decide in the light of the circumstances of the practice and the amount of time given to it by any assistant.

  The new general medical services (GMS) contract will mean that patients will register with a practice rather than with an individual practitioner. In order that practices are not constrained in terms of growth, the list maxima currently applied under regulation 24 of the 1992 Regulations will no longer be continued under the new statutory provisions implementing the new GMS contract.

  The information relating to alternative general practices with vacancies in the immediate vicinity is not held centrally.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients the general practice of Doctors Leighton, Williams, Khraishi and Ghannam had in November 2003; and how many it is proposed they will have in February 2004 following the planned closure of their branch surgery. [146629]

  Dr. Ladyman
  This information is not held centrally.

  However, my hon. Friend may wish to contact the Chairman of Thurrock Primary Care Trust to request this information.

  Drug Treatment
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people aged 15 to 24 started drug treatment episodes in each year since 1990, broken down by socio-economic group in(a) England and (b) each region. [146340]
  599W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Information on the number of drug users in the 15 to 24 year old age group presenting for drug treatment in England and by region is available in the Library and on the Department's web-site as detailed below. Information on the socio-economic group of clients starting drug treatment is not collected centrally.

  National figures, from drug misuse agencies and general practitioners in England, for each six month period from 1993 to 2001 were published in the Department's Statistical Bulletin series, Drug Misuse Statistics 1993 to 1997 and Statistics from the Regional Drug Misuse Databases 1998 to 2001. These are available at http://www.doh.gov.uld public/work_public_health.htm#sdd

  Elder Abuse
  Ann Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that(a) nursing and (b) auxiliary staff are adequately trained to identify and deal with elder abuse in (i) the home and (ii) nursing and residential care. [146318]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Government is fully committed to ensuring the provision of an adequately trained workforce to provide care for all vulnerable adults in social care settings, including care homes with nursing on the premises. The Department's No Secrets guidance has required all local councils and partner agencies to establish effective multi-agency codes of practice to protect vulnerable adults from abuse. A key element of this guidance concerns the training of staff. The guidance states that agencies should provide training for staff and volunteers on the policy, procedures and professional practices that are in the place locally, commensurate with their responsibilities in the adult protection process.

  In addition, the Department's National Minimum Standards for care homes and domiciliary care, used by the National Care Standards Commission to regulate social care for older people and other vulnerable adults has a number of requirements concerning abuse. These include, protecting service users from abuse, ensuring adequate staff training, and the employment of staff in accordance with the code of practice set by the General Social Care Council, which includes advice to challenge and report and behaviour or practice that could lead to abuse.

  Finally, all registered nurses are bound by the Nursing and Midwifery Council's code of professional conduct, which makes explicit the responsibility of registered nurses in ensuring that they protect the public through professional standards.

  Emergency Readmissions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made towards achieving the national priorities guidance performance target to reduce the per capita rate of growth in emergency readmissions of people aged 75 years or over; and for what reasons the data collection for emergency admissions was changed to an all age base from 2003–04. [146208]
  600W
  Dr. Ladyman
  The performance target for the rate of emergency readmissions within 28 days of discharge for patients of all ages as set out in the priorities and planning framework for 2003–06, "Improvement, Expansion and Reform", is that there will be no growth. The rate at Quarter 4, 2002–03 was 5.5 per cent. The latest information available is the Quarter 2, 2003–04 figure, which shows no growth.

  The target, and subsequently the collection of monitoring information on emergency readmissions, was changed from that relating only to patients aged 75 because it was perceived as being ageist in that older people could be denied access to hospital services in order to meet a performance target. Emergency readmissions targets and data collections have, therefore, covered all ages since 2002.

  Fluoridation
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what prowess his Department has made in its consideration of the indemnification of water supply companies against claims arising from fluoridation; [146011]

  (2) whether his Department will provide equal funding for the presentation of both sides in the event of a local referendum on water fluoridation; [146012]

  (3) what guidance his Department has given to strategic health authorities on evaluating public opinion on fluoridation of the water supply. [146013]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Section 58 of the Water Act 2003 provides for regulations to be made on both the process which strategic health authorities are to follow in order to consult and ascertain opinion on proposals to fluoridate their water supplies and the indemnities to be made available to water undertakers in respect of any liabilities which they may incur in fluoridating water. We plan to make these regulations, which are subject to affirmative resolution, during 2004. Subject to their approval, we will issue guidance to strategic health authorities on their implementation including standards for consultations which ensure that the views of both proponents and opponents of fluoridation are expressed and taken into account.

  Foundation Trusts
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to approve the governance arrangements of the first wave of foundation hospitals. [145194]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 provides for national health service trusts to submit their applications for NHS foundation trust status to the Independent Regulator. The Independent Regulator must be satisfied that the applicant's constitution is in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Health and Social Care Act 2003 before granting an authorisation.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assistance his Department will offer foundation hospitals in developing(a) ethical and (b) environmental, (i) investment, (ii) banking and (iii) procurement policies. [145716]
  601W
  Mr. Hutton
  National Health Service foundation trusts will develop their own investment, banking and procurement policies, subject to any conditions set by the Independent Regulator in their terms of authorisation. NHS foundation trusts will not be subject to directions from the Department, but they will be able to continue to access guidance and best practice developed or disseminated by the Department and its agencies, including NHS Estates and the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice has been given to trusts seeking foundation status on(a) building up an active membership and (b) demonstrating their understanding of mutual organisations. [146546]

  Mr. Hutton
  Department of Health officials are working with the first wave of applicants for national health service foundation trust status on membership issues, which includes holding regular meetings with the trusts. The advice given at the meetings includes significant input from the mutual sector both on building an active membership and developing a better understanding of the mutual sector. This is supported by a comprehensive source book, "NHS Foundation Trusts—A guide to the governance arrangements", which was developed with advice from a group of external experts on governance.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is issued to NHS Trusts on the disposal of NHS assets; and what changes are proposed as a result of foundation status being achieved. [1465471]

  Mr. Hutton
  Guidance on the disposal of surplus national health service property assets is contained in the Department's "Estatecode", a copy of which is available in the Library. Guidance on the accounting treatment for disposals of assets is contained in the NHS "Capital Accounting Manual", which is publicly available on the Department's web-site at www.doh.gov.uk.

  Section 16 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 prevents NHS foundation trusts from disposing of NHS property designated as protected without the approval of the

  Single-handed unrestricted principals and equivalents (UPEs)1 by strategic health authority

  England

  Numbers (headcount)

  1998

  1999

  2000

  UPE partners hips

  of which: single-handed

  UPE partners hips

  of which: single-handed

  UPE partners hips

  of which: single-handed

  England total

  8,994

  2,683

  8,944

  2,631

  8,878

  2,485

  Number of UPEs

  27,392

  27,591

  27,704

  North

  2,708

  812

  2,697

  803

  2,679

  796

  Northumberland, Tyne & Wear

  243

  56

  239

  54

  238

  52

  Country Durham & Tees Valley

  176

  50

  171

  41

  166

  37

  North & East Yorkshire & Northern

  273

  70

  268

  69

  263

  69

  Lincolnshire

  West Yorkshire

  378

  110

  382

  114

  377

  110

  Cumbria & Lancashire

  386

  128

  385

  127

  379

  125

  Greater Manchester

  581

  219

  577

  210

  579

  213

  Cheshire & Merseyside

  438

  117

  442

  122

  445

  125

  South Yorkshire

  233

  62

  233

  66

  232

  65

  602W
  Independent Regulator. The Independent Regulator will be issuing guidance on this to NHS foundation trusts.

  General Practitioners
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which primary care trusts have indicated that they will not be able to assure out-of-hours cover for general practitioners in(a) April 2004 and (b) August 2004. [143188]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 11 December 2003]: None. From April 2004, general practices will be able to opt out of out-of-hours services with the agreement of their primary care trust (PCT). PCTs will not agree to opt-outs unless they have put in place proper alternative arrangements. Opting out will become a right in all but exceptional circumstances from January 2005.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of general practitioners have indicated that they intend to opt out of 24-hour cover, broken down by(a) rural practices, (b) urban practices and (c) strategic health authority. [143189]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 11 December 2003]: Primary care trusts are working with their local practices to establish the position, but full information is not available. We expect, however, that the majority of general practitioners will choose to opt-out of responsibility for providing services overnight and at weekends.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) general practitioners' surgeries and (b) single-handed general practitioners' surgeries there were in each of the last five years for which figures are available in (i) England, (ii) each region and (iii) each strategic health authority. [144318]

  Mr. Hutton
  Data on the number of general practitioner partnerships, including single-handed practitioners is published annually and is available at http://www. doh.gov.uk/public/stats 1.htm. The information requested is shown in the table. The total number of partnerships fell during the period 1998 to 2003 however there has been a steady trend towards larger partnerships and more general practitioners working in the national health service than ever before.
  603W

  Single-handed unrestricted principals and equivalents (UPEs)1 by strategic health authority

  England

  Numbers (headcount)

  1998

  1999

  2000

  UPE partners hips

  of which: single-handed

  UPE partners hips

  of which: single-handed

  UPE partners hips

  of which: single-handed

  Midlands & Eastern

  2,547

  726

  2,531

  716

  2,521

  706

  Norfolk, Suffolk & Cambridgeshire

  307

  40

  305

  36

  307

  38

  Bedfordshire & Hertfordshire

  238

  57

  231

  47

  233

  52

  Essex

  285

  96

  285

  100

  288

  105

  Trent

  429

  98

  430

  100

  427

  93

  Leicestershire, Northamptonshire & Rutland

  240

  62

  232

  61

  225

  56

  Shropshire & Staffordshire

  266

  89

  272

  95

  270

  97

  Birmingham & the Black Country

  542

  240

  540

  237

  535

  226

  Coventry, Warwickshire, Herefordshire & Worcestershire

  240

  44

  236

  40

  236

  39

  London

  1,736

  754

  1,711

  735

  1,691

  717

  North West London

  469

  217

  464

  209

  458

  209

  North Central London

  312

  147

  304

  140

  305

  137

  North East London

  385

  186

  380

  182

  378

  178

  South East London

  311

  121

  308

  122

  302

  112

  South West London

  259

  83

  255

  82

  248

  77

  South

  2,003

  391

  2,005

  377

  1,987

  356

  Thames Valley

  299

  52

  304

  50

  300

  47

  Hampshire & Isle of Wight

  241

  28

  241

  28

  240

  26

  Kent & Medway

  324

  139

  314

  126

  306

  113

  Surrey & Sussex

  379

  74

  379

  75

  375

  71

  Avon, Gloucestershire & Wiltshire

  322

  43

  326

  42

  325

  44

  South West Peninsula

  254

  28

  254

  29

  254

  28

  Dorset & Somerset

  184

  27

  187

  27

  187

  27

  2001

  2002

  June 2003

  UPE partners hips

  of which: single-handed

  UPE partners hips

  of which: single-handed

  UPE partners hips

  of which: single-handed

  England total

  8,817

  2,534

  8,748

  2,482

  8,750

  2,485

  Number of UPEs

  27,843

  28,031

  28,384

  North

  2,653

  769

  2,632

  760

  2,635

  750

  Northumberland, Tyne & Wear

  237

  48

  235

  43

  235

  45

  Country Durham & Tees Valley

  167

  34

  168

  36

  176

  40

  North & East Yorkshire & Northern

  265

  70

  266

  74

  265

  67

  Lincolnshire

  West Yorkshire

  378

  108

  375

  99

  378

  101

  Cumbria & Lancashire

  375

  122

  368

  117

  365

  117

  Greater Manchester

  562

  201

  555

  202

  553

  196

  Cheshire & Merseyside

  440

  127

  439

  127

  437

  123

  South Yorkshire

  229

  59

  226

  62

  226

  61

  Midlands & Eastern

  2,506

  709

  2,478

  698

  2,477

  707

  Norfolk, Suffolk & Cambridgeshire

  309

  44

  301

  37

  304

  38

  Bedfordshire & Hertfordshire

  230

  53

  229

  51

  230

  51

  Essex

  278

  95

  274

  92

  269

  96

  Trent

  426

  91

  424

  94

  420

  88

  Leicestershire, Northamptonshire & Rutland

  226

  53

  223

  48

  226

  54

  Shropshire & Staffordshire

  271

  104

  267

  100

  271

  106

  Birmingham & the Black Country

  534

  234

  529

  237

  528

  235

  Coventry, Warwickshire, Herefordshire & Worcestershire

  232

  35

  231

  39

  229

  39

  London

  1,691

  717

  1,675

  701

  1,698

  717

  North West London

  459

  200

  448

  191

  463

  202

  North Central London

  306

  137

  310

  142

  320

  157

  North East London

  380

  192

  378

  191

  372

  182

  South East London

  304

  114

  297

  109

  305

  117

  South West London

  242

  74

  242

  68

  238

  59

  South

  1,967

  339

  1,963

  323

  1,940

  311

  Thames Valley

  296

  39

  297

  41

  297

  40

  Hampshire & Isle of Wight

  238

  25

  240

  24

  235

  27

  Kent & Medway

  305

  115

  299

  110

  289

  100

  Surrey & Sussex

  367

  69

  367

  60

  366

  61

  Avon, Gloucestershire & Wiltshire

  324

  42

  323

  38

  325

  39

  South West Peninsula

  252

  27

  252

  28

  250

  27

  Dorset & Somerset

  185

  22

  185

  22

  178

  17

  604W 605W
  1 UPEs include QMS Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs and PMS Salaried GPs.

  Note:

  Data as at 1 October 1998–99, 30 September 2000–02 and 30 June 2003

  'Single-handed' means an UPE who is not in partnership with another UPE although many so called 'single-handers' work with another GP qualified doctor.

  Source:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics

  Head Lice
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the national professional guidance on head louse control (the Stafford Report) and the subsequent guidelines based on the guidance and published in the Journal of Family Healthcare. [144161]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 17 December 2003]: Professional guidance on head louse control recognises that detection combing is of paramount importance, as is the use of appropriate treatment options. This can involve either lotions or combing regimes. Our view is that parents should be able to make an informed choice with advice on both options being available from primary health care teams.

  Health Professionals (Training)
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that training programmes for health professionals include components which encourage the development of skills specific to working with men. [145524]

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

  Health Tourism (Cambridgeshire)
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates he has made of the cost to the NHS in Cambridgeshire of health tourism in 2002–03. [146452]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Entitlement to free national health service treatment is based on residence in the United Kingdom. The National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations 1989 place a duty on NHS trusts to establish whether a patient is ordinarily resident or otherwise eligible for free NHS hospital treatment and if not to levy a charge for any treatment provided.

  The amounts collected from NHS charged patients are not separately identified in trust accounts and are not collected centrally.

  Hospitals (West London)
  Mr. Portillo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the extent to which primary care trust resources are adequate to cover the cost of capital programmes at the(a) Ealing,
  606W
  (b) Charing Cross, (c) Hillingdon, (d) Northwick Park and (e) Paddington hospital sites, while meeting growth in demand for services; [145096]

  (2) what assessment he has made of whether redevelopment at the (a) Charing Cross and (b) Chelsea and Westminster hospitals would represent a viable alternative to redevelopment at Paddington. [145098]

  Mr. Hutton
  The outline business case (OBC) for the Paddington Health Campus scheme which was approved in October 2000 is currently being reviewed. This review will determine if the financial assumptions underpinning the OBC are still robust. The review will include the views of local primary care trusts.

  Influenza
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking this winter to respond to the risk of an increase in influenza cases. [141319]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 2 December 2003]: All strategic health authorities have developed stringent winter plans to cope with increased seasonal demand for health services, such as that caused by the flu season. These set out escalation procedures, which are activated in the event of increased pressure on the national health service.

  In addition, a daily winter reporting system has been instigated so that the Department of Health is aware of any Trusts experiencing winter pressures. If pressures are identified, the Department of Health works with the responsible strategic health authority in developing a solution, such as the introduction of improved working practices or the opening of additional beds.

  Influenza Vaccine
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each health authority(a) the number of people eligible for the influenza vaccine and (b) the number of shots of vaccine available during winter 2003–04 and (c) whether the health authority has reported a shortage in supply. [145624]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The number of people aged 65 and over by strategic health authority is shown in the table. This year, there are nearly 12.4 million doses of vaccine available. No strategic health authority has reported a shortage of flu vaccine.

  Strategic health authority

  Population aged over 65

  Cheshire and Merseyside

  382,894

  County Durham and Tees Valley

  182,924

  Cumbria and Lancashire

  321,415

  Greater Manchester

  375,607

  North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire

  283,378

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear

  233,567

  South Yorkshire

  205,232

  West Yorkshire

  313,728

  607W

  Strategic health authority

  Population aged over 65

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire

  237,754

  Birmingham and the Black Country

  360,054

  Coventry, Warwickshire. Herefordshire and Worcestershire

  251,755

  Essex

  268,299

  Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland

  221,145

  Norfolk. Suffolk and Cambridgeshire

  388,676

  Shropshire and Staffordshire

  235,813

  Trent

  444,755

  North Central London

  145,780

  North East London

  181,018

  North West London

  214,823

  South East London

  189,867

  South West London

  161,786

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire

  357,190

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  293,145

  Kent and Medway

  263,637

  Somerset and Dorset

  248,767

  South West Peninsula

  316,441

  Surrey and Sussex

  478,280

  Thames Valley

  290.607

  Key Worker Housing
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much land his Department is proposing that the Government should buy for key worker houses. [144943]

  Mr. Hutton
  Accommodation for national health service key workers is being planned with Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and is normally sourced through other agencies. Therefore, the Department has no plans to purchase any land for this purpose.

  Learning Disabilities
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many adults with learning disabilities there were in the UK in(a) 1997 and (b) 2003; and how many of these were aged 60 or over. [146679]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Data on the number of adults with learning disabilities in England are not centrally available.

  The learning disability white paper, "Valuing People (1999)", estimated that there are about 210,000 people with severe and profound learning disabilities in England. Of these, around 65,000 are children and young people, 120,000 are adults of working age and 25,000 are older people. In the case of people with mild/moderate learning disabilities, lower estimates suggest a prevalence rate of around 25 per 1,000 population—some 1.2 million people in England.

  Information relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for the Devolved Administrations.

  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much earmarked funding has been provided to local authorities for a(a) older people's services and (b) adults with learning disabilities in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [146731]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Department does not earmark any funds to local authorities specifically for older people or learning disability services. Local authorities decide how much to make available for services to older people 608W
  and those with learning disabilities from the overall amount provided for adult personal social services by the Department.

  Life Resources Inc.
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out the screening arrangements(a) taken and (b) required by Life Resources Inc. in respect of deferring donors who have travelled to live for five years or more in the UK or Europe between 1980 and 1996. [146343]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The United States does not accept blood donations from people who have visited or lived in the United Kingdom or Europe for six months or more between 1980 and 1996.

  Long Term Conditions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of people reported a longstanding illness or disability(a) in England, (b) in each region and (c) broken down by socio-economic group in each year since 1990. [146339]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Burstow dated 12 January 2004:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the prevalence of people reporting a longstanding illness or disability in England, each region and each socio-economic group since 1990. I am replying in his absence.

  The General Household Survey (GHS), carried out by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), publishes the prevalence of longstanding illness, disability or infirmity. The latest available estimates are for the 2001 survey. The tables, which have been placed in the Library, show the prevalence of longstanding illness for:

  (a) England, 1990 to 2001;

  (b) Region—standard region, 1994 to 1996 and Government Office Region, 1998 to 2001; Unfortunately, regional analyses for 1990 to 1993 are not readily available. Prior to 1994, regional analyses would be based on health regions and thus not directly comparable with later years.

  (c) Socio-economic status,

  socio-economic group by individual, 1990 to 1991

  socio-economic group by head of household, 1992 to 1998

  socio-economic group by household reference person. 2000

  National Statistics socio-economic classification by household reference person, 2001.

  As with any sample survey, estimates from the GHS are subject to sampling variability.

  Maternity Services
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response he will make to the Fourth, Eighth and Ninth reports of the Health Select Committee on maternity services in session 2002–03. [143413]
  609W
  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 11 December 2003]: A response will be made shortly taking into account the document Building on the Best-Choice, Responsiveness and Equity in the NHS, which was launched on 9 December 2003.

  Medicines and Health Care Products Regulatory Agency
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the objectives of the Medicines and Health Care Products Regulatory Agency are in relation to(a) the development of the pharmaceutical industry and (b) the protection of public health; how performance against these objectives is evaluated; and how any conflict between the objectives is overcome. [145364]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The primary goal of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is the protection of public health through the regulation of medicines and medical devices.

  Its aims and objectives are set out in its business plan, which is available in the Library. There are no specific objectives relating to the development of the pharmaceutical industry. The business plan does, however, contain measures of the efficiency of its performance of services for the pharmaceutical industry.

  Performance is evaluated internally and reported quarterly to the Secretary of State for Health. The MHRA is subject regularly to internal audit and to external audit by the National Audit Office.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions his Department has had with the Department for International Development regarding the rights of people suffering from mental health problems in the developing world. [144841]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 18 December 2003]: The Department of Health provides funding for the World Health Organisation (WHO) collaborating centre at the Institute for Psychiatry to work closely with the Department for International Development and a number of governments of low and middle income countries.

  In addition, the United Kingdom national counterpart for mental health to the WHO, based at the National Institute for Mental Health in England, has been involved in the WHO global fellowship programme which aims to train senior policy makers in developing countries in mental health policy and service development and implementation.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the risk of developing a mental illness, broken down by(a) region and (b) socio-economic status. [146335]
  610W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information is available from independent longitudinal research about the relationship between risk factors and the likelihood of an individual within the population developing a mental illness.

  The Department of Health does not assess this directly. However, the Office for National Statistics (www.statistics.gov.uk) collects information on a systematic basis about current correlates of mental illness, including age, gender, socio-economic status, physical health and other factors, and estimates mental illness prevalence rates.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on(a) the findings of the national survey of ethnic minority psychiatric illness rates in the community and (b) the action he will take as a result. [144812]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The national survey of ethnic minority psychiatric illness rates in the community (EMPIRIC study) was a major survey of psychiatric illness rates in the community amongst ethnic minority adults aged 16–74 living in England. The survey was used to make comparisons with the prevalence of psychiatric morbidity in the general population. The findings were released in May 2002.

  The results of this survey allow, for the first time, detailed analysis of the mental health of ethnic minority groups and comparisons with a general white population. It contains data on common mental disorders, psychosis, social functioning, physical health, use of services and social support. The report identifies different rates of common mental disorders and psychotic illness between minority ethnic groups.

  In order to combat the inequality experience by black and minority ethnic mental health service users, "Delivering Race Equality: Guidance for Services" was launched on 17 October for consultation. This marks the start of a major programme by the National Institute for Mental Health in England on black and minority ethnic mental health.

  Microbiologists
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons five of the posts for regional microbiologists formerly filled by group directors of the Public Health Laboratory Service are vacant. [145039]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There are nine regional microbiologist posts in the Health Protection Agency (HPA). Four of these have been filled by former Public Health Laboratory Service group laboratory directors, following internal advertisement, applying procedures in accordance with the change management protocol which was agreed when the HPA was created. The remaining five positions were subsequently advertised externally and the process for assessing and interviewing candidates is underway.

  Mid-Essex Hospital Trust
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the latest available figures are for the total number of people waiting for in-patient treatment in the Mid Essex Hospital Trust area. [143752]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 16 December 2003]: I am advised that, as of 13 October 2003, there were 8,040 patients waiting for elective admission at Mid Essex Hospital Trust.

  Source:

  Department of Health monthly monitoring reports.

  Mifegyne
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what investigations the(a) Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and (b) the Committee on the Safety of Medicines have conducted into the two suspected fatal reactions associated with the use of Mifegyne; and with what results. [146479]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  As with all marketed medicines, the safety of Mifegyne (mifepristone, an antiprogestogenic steroid that is used for the medical termination of intra-uterine pregnancy) is continuously monitored by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

  The MHRA has carefully evaluated the two reports received via the Yellow Card Scheme of fatal suspected

  Department of Health mandatory bacteraemia surveillance scheme—MRSA bacteraemia by region—Acute NHS trusts

  Regions

  Total Number

  S.aureus bacteraemia April 01 to March 02 Methicillin resistant

  Percentage

  Total number

  S.aureus bacteraemia April 02 to March 03 Methicillin resistant

  Percentage

  Percentage difference MRSA between the two years

  North East

  931

  363

  39.0

  953

  380

  39.9

  4.5

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2,028

  714

  35.2

  2,086

  664

  31.8

  -7.5

  East Midlands

  1,374

  543

  39.5

  1,349

  494

  36.6

  -9.9

  Eastern

  1,683

  754

  45.0

  1,653

  714

  43.1

  -5.6

  London

  3,524

  1,571

  44.6

  3,739

  1,659

  44.4

  5.3

  South East

  2,205

  1,012

  45.9

  2,417

  989

  40.9

  0.8

  South West

  1,745

  696

  39.9

  1,756

  738

  42.0

  5.7

  West Midlands

  1,863

  761

  40.8

  1,908

  812

  42.6

  6.3

  North West

  2,580

  867

  33.6

  2,658

  934

  35.1

  7.2

  England

  17,933

  7,281

  40.6

  18,519

  7,384

  39.8

  1.8

  Provisional data

  Strategic health authority

  1Total MRSA

  2Total MRSA

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire

  386

  389

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire

  192

  173

  Birmingham and the Black Country

  452

  455

  Cheshire and Merseyside

  286

  344

  County Durham and Tees Valley

  171

  155

  Coventry, Warwickshire,Herefordshire and Worcestershire

  153

  182

  Cumbria and Lancashire

  236

  215

  Dorset and Somerset

  74

  139

  Essex

  194

  149

  Greater Manchester

  345

  375

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  209

  200

  Kent and Medway

  222

  205

  Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland

  203

  189

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire

  368

  392

  North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire

  213

  151

  612W
  adverse reactions associated with the use of Mifegyne. This assessment has included details from the post-mortems received in the initial report or via follow-up information obtained from the marketing authorisation holder. The MHRA has concluded that the two cases did not require alteration of the advice to health professionals in the summary of product characteristics and did not affect the balance of risks and benefits of mifepristone. The Committee on Safety of Medicines was not asked to consider these cases.

  The reporting of a suspected adverse drug reaction does not necessarily mean that the drug was responsible. Many factors, such as the medical condition that is being treated, other pre-existing illnesses or other medications might have contributed. In one of the cases, the fatal suspected reaction that was reported is recognised to occur with greater frequency during pregnancy or surgery, irrespective of the use of mifepristone.

  MRSA
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many reports of MRSA there were in(a) England, (b) each region and (c) each strategic health authority in each of the last six years. [140859]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 3 December 2003]: The national mandatory surveillance system for methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) blood stream infections (bacteraemias), started in April 2001 and the available data are shown in the tables.

  Provisional data

  Strategic health authority

  1Total MRSA

  2Total MRSA

  North central London

  359

  376

  North east London

  238

  246

  North west London

  362

  387

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear

  192

  225

  Shropshire and Staffordshire

  156

  175

  South east London

  345

  406

  South west London

  267

  244

  South west Peninsula

  236

  210

  South Yorkshire

  141

  156

  Surrey and Sussex

  360

  341

  Thames Valley

  221

  243

  Trent

  340

  305

  West Yorkshire

  360

  357

  1 April 2001 to March 2002

  2 April 2002 to March 2003

  NHS Graduates
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many NHS graduates had their university fees reimbursed by their employers in the last year for which figures are available. [144280]

  Mr. Hutton
  In respect of National Health Service funded pre-registration Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health profession courses, no top-up fees are charged to students. These students have their contribution to tuition fees met through workforce development confederation contracts with higher education institutions. Fourth and fifth year undergraduate medical students and second, third and fourth year graduate entry medical students are entitled to claim back their top-up fees from the NHS student grant unit. Students benefiting from these arrangements are shown in the table.

  The multi-professional education and training budget supports post-registration training for NHS professionals, including paying university fees. NHS trusts may also support postgraduate and post-registration study. Information on the number of NHS employees who have their fees paid in this way is not available centrally.

  £000

  Nursing and Midwifery

  65,000

  Allied Health Professions

  17,400

  Healthcare Scientists

  3,200

  Medical Students

  4,900

  NHS Professionals
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which health trusts have declined to use NHS professionals. [145667]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information is not held centrally.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much NHS Professionals charges hospital trusts for their services; [145669]

  (2) in what circumstances NHS Professionals may charge an administrative fee to hospital trusts; [145672]

  (3) what charges NHS Professionals make to trusts when they act as an intermediary between commercial agencies and trusts; [145670]

  (4) what categories of charges are included in NHS Professionals administration charges. [145936]

  Mr. Hutton
  The NHS Professionals Special Health Authority was formally established on 1 January 2004. Decisions on these matters will in future be made by the authority.

  Prior to the establishment of the special health authority, a range of different NHS Professionals services have been provided throughout England. Department of Health guidance issued in 2001, NHS Professionals—A co-ordinated, NHS-led approach to temporary staffing, a copy of which is in the Library, recommended a management fee of 7.5 per cent. The Oxford area NHS Professionals service also made a
  614W
  3 per cent. administration charge to trusts when acting as an intermediary with private recruitment agencies. No other categories of charge have been made.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been charged by NHS professionals in administrative fees since it was set up. [145671]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information is not held centrally.

  NHS Property Sales
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his latest estimate is of the value of properties to be sold as part of the Inventures/NHS Estates surplus property sale; and when he will make a statement about progress of the sale. [145007]

  Mr. Hutton
  The value of the properties is commercially confidential. A statement on progress will be made in early 2004.

  NHS Trust (Chief Executive Misconduct)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what duties are placed on a strategic health authority in circumstances where an authority is notified of a possible case of misconduct by the chief executive of an NHS trust. [146622]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  It is ultimately only the employer which can take action with regard to its employees. The code of conduct for national health service managers states that where there has been an alleged breach of the code, it is for a local employer to decide whether to investigate the matter informally or under the terms of local disciplinary action. In the majority of cases the authority with which the contract lies will carry out investigations of alleged breaches of the code.

  There are therefore no specific duties placed on a strategic health authority in circumstances where an authority is notified of a possible case of misconduct by the chief executive of an NHS trust. If a case of this kind did occur, strategic health authorities and other bodies can offer advice.

  Obesity
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many finished consultant episodes there were where obesity was the primary diagnosis in(a) each NHS region and (b) England in 2002–03. [146216]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The table shows the count of finished consultant episodes by region in national health service hospitals for 2002–03 where obesity is the primary diagnosis.

  Region of treatment

  Total episodes

  Northern and Yorkshire

  348

  Trent

  164

  West Midlands

  102

  North West

  241

  Eastern

  56

  London

  258

  615W

  Region of treatment

  Total episodes

  South East

  156

  South West

  95

  Not Known

  22

  Total for England

  1,442

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  Orthodontic Treatment
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients in(a) England and (b) Mid-Essex are waiting for orthodontic treatment; and how many have been waiting for treatment for (i) up to six months, (ii) up to 12 months, (iii) up to 24 months, (iv) up to 36 months and (v) over 36 months. [144860]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 5 January 2003]: Information on waiting times for orthodontic treatment in the general dental services (GDS) is not available.

  In terms of hospital treatment, in England at 30 September 2003 there were 228 patients waiting for elective inpatient admission for treatment by a consultant in the speciality of orthodontics. Of these 205 were waiting up to six months, and a further 23 were waiting over six months. No patients were waiting over 12 months. Mid-Essex Hospital Services National Health Service Trust had no patients waiting for the orthodontics speciality on the same date.

  The NHS Plan (July 2000) sets out how waiting times will fall year on year. Maximum waiting times have already been reduced to 21 weeks for a first outpatient appointment and 12 months for inpatient treatment. However, the Government recognises that there is still some way to go.

  Waiting times for hospital care will continue to fall, so that by the end of 2005, the maximum waiting time for a first outpatient appointment will be cut to 13 weeks and the maximum wait for inpatient treatment will be cut to six months.

  In the twelve month period ending September 2003 GDS dentists in the Mid-Essex area claimed payment for 2,631 courses of treatment involving orthodontic appliances for children aged less than 18 years. This is equivalent to 27.5 claims per 1,000 population aged under 18, almost twice the England average of 14.5. The mid-Essex figure is for the area covered by the PCTs, Chelmsford; Maldon and South Chelmsford; Uttlesford; Witham, Braintree and Halstead.

  Osteoporosis
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) osteoporotic and (b) hip fractures were treated by the NHS in each of the last five years; and what the cost was in each year. [146575]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The table shows the counts of finished admission episodes for osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures treated by national health service hospitals in England from years 1998–99 to 2002–03.
  616W

  Primary Diagnosis

  Osteoporosis with pathological fracture

  Fracture of Femur/Fracture of Neck of Femur

  1998–99

  3,489

  43,041

  1999–2000

  3,361

  43,983

  2000–01

  3,592

  43,625

  2001–02

  3,321

  42,367

  2002–03

  3,687

  46,766

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health, England.

  The Department does not collect information centrally relating to costs.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what mechanisms are in place to ensure that the targets related to osteoporosis in standard six of the national service framework for older people have been met. [146578]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Osteoporosis is a key component of an integrated falls service, which all health and social care systems are to have established by 2005. The 2005 milestone is set as a target in Improvement Expansion and Reform, the Priority and Planning Framework for 2003–06, and progress towards this target is being monitored centrally.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the link between osteoporosis and bed blocking. [145634]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Department of Health does not collect data on the precise medical conditions of patients delayed in hospital, but it does have information on overall numbers of delays. Good progress has been made in reducing the number of delayed transfers of care from hospital year on year, with the number of acute patients delayed on any one day going down from around 6,000 in 2001, to 5,000 in 2002, to 4,000 in 2003. This reflects increased investment in services to tackle delays following the introduction of the Building Care Capacity Grant, and the introduction in October 2003 of new duties of communication between the National Health Service and councils required by the Community Care (Delayed Discharges, etc. Act). In January 2004 the Act requires local authorities to begin to reimburse the NHS for those delays for which they are solely responsible. This requirement will act as a further incentive to partners to identify and tackle the causes of delay in their local system.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of whether the identification of osteoporosis has become a priority in primary care as suggested in the National Service Framework for Older People. [145635]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Falls services, incorporating osteoporosis are covered in the national service framework (NSF) for older people. This, when set in the context of the national priorities guidance establishes it as a high priority for local action and delivery.

  The NSF for older people sets clear milestones for the planning and development of integrated falls services and provides the basis for a service model that will deliver the improvements in prevention, care, treatment and rehabilitation that we all want to see.
  617W
  The Priority and Planning Framework for 2003–2006 requires by April 2005, that an integrated falls service should be established across all health and social care systems. This target is an important driver for change and local service improvements. In line with "Shifting the Balance of Power" the priorities guidance set achievement and delivery of the NSF for older people milestones as a priority for local action.

  The most recent reports we have from strategic health authorities indicate that all but a few of the primary care trust local delivery plans include actions to achieve the 2005 falls milestone. We have collected no systematic information on what local plans cover.

  Paddington Site
  Mr. Portillo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the estimated cost of the Paddington site development was on 1 January 2002; what his latest estimate of the cost of the development is; and if he will investigate alternative options for meeting tertiary health demand in West London. [145097]

  Mr. Hutton
  The estimated capital cost of the preferred option in the outline business case (OBC) which was approved in October 2000—the Paddington Basin scheme—was £360 million. The estimated cost of this option is currently £800 million.

  This initial OBC is currently being reviewed. This review will determine if the financial assumptions underpinning the OBC are still robust.

  Prisoners
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what responsibility the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection has for(a) prisoners' and (b) ex-offenders' mental health care. [144522]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  From April 2004, the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection will be responsible for conducting reviews and investigations of healthcare, including mental health services, provided by and for national health service bodies.

  This responsibility will include the review or investigation of health services for prisoners where these are commissioned or provided by primary care trusts.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the equipment procured under the Private Finance Initiative in each year since 1998, broken down by(a) type, (b) hospital, (c) initial capital cost, (d) term of payment and (e) overall cost. [145586]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information is not held centrally for equipment procured under private finance initiative (PFI) contracts. To gain this information would mean contacting all national health service trusts with PFI schemes, thus incurring disproportionate costs.

  Public Services
  Mr. Barstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to introduce independent scrutiny of all performance monitoring procedures, with particular reference to the star ratings system. [146337]
  618W
  Mr. Hutton
  The Commission for Health Improvement (CHI) is the independent regulator of national health service performance and is responsible for developing indicators and publishing NHS performance ratings. Ministers will continue to agree key targets and the priority areas to be covered in the ratings, but are not responsible for their calculation and publication.

  The Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection, which will take over responsibility for the ratings process from April 2004 and will publish the 2003–04 ratings this summer and develop future indicator sets, including the 2004–05 set.

  Under the Health and Social Care Act 2003, the Secretary of State for Health has responsibility for setting national standards. Future published standards will impact on performance monitoring arrangements.

  Radiotherapy
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of patients started radiotherapy within four weeks of diagnosis of(a) lung, (b) gynaecological, (c) breast, (d) colorectal and (e) urological cancers in each of the last three years. [145760]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Information on waiting times for radiotherapy is not collected centrally. The NHS Cancer Plan set out maximum waiting time targets for a patient's first definitive cancer treatment, which could include radiotherapy. From December 2001, there has been a one month maximum wait from diagnosis to first treatment for breast cancer. From 2002, there has been a maximum two month wait from urgent referral by a general practitioner for suspected cancer, to first treatment for breast cancer. By 2005, there will be a maximum two months from urgent referral by a GP to treatment commencing, and a maximum one-month wait from diagnosis to first treatment for all cancers.

  Read the Signs Programme
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a copy of the evaluation of the Read the Signs anti-stigma programme. [144937]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  A copy of the management summary of the research for the Read the Signs anti-stigma programme has been placed in the Library.

  Recruitment Advertising
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent on recruitment advertisements in the press, broken down by publication, by(a) his Department, (b) quangos under the Department and (c) non-departmental Government bodies under the Department (i) in the last year and (ii) since 1997. [145802]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Figures prior to the year 2002–03 are not available. The Department's non-departmental public bodies and quangos have devolved responsibility for their own recruitment. Figures and the publications used for recruitment advertisements can only be provided at disproportionate cost. A list of the Departments non-departmental public bodies can be found in the publication "Public Bodies 2003", copies of which are available in the Library.
  619W
  Details of where advertisements are placed are not centrally recorded, and can be provided only at disproportionate cost. Where advertisements are placed will depend on the nature of the vacancies. The Department has a robust external recruitment policy, which complies with the rules and requirements of "Minister's Rules for Selection, The Civil Service Order in Council", Treasury and equal opportunity and employment protection legislation.

  The information requested for the Department is shown in the table.

  £

  1 April-31 March

  Recruitment budget spend

  2003-to date

  146,331.25

  2002–03

  345,229.15

  Research and Development
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out for each year since 1996 the amount(a) budgeted for and (b) spent on research and development; what proportion of the departmental, including NHS, budget this represents; how much of the research and development budget has been (i) allocated and (ii) spent on public health; and what proportion of the research and development budget this represents. [145082]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The amounts initially allocated for each of the past six years and spent in each year from the combined budgets for the departmental policy research programme (PRP) and for national health service research and development are shown in the table.

  £million

  Initial allocation

  Expenditure

  1997–98

  450

  452

  1998–99

  453

  446

  1999–2000

  464

  466

  2000–01

  480

  483

  2001–02

  510

  510

  2002–03

  540

  547

  Note:

  Policy research programme and NHS R&D combined budgets.

  Research is also carried out by some of the Department's arm's length bodies. Total Departmental expenditure on research and development, and what proportion of the Department's total net expenditure this represents, is shown in the following table.

  Total R&D spend (£ million)

  R&D as proportion of total net Departmental spend(Percentage)

  1997–98

  486

  1.38

  1998–99

  481

  1.05

  1999–2000

  501

  1.02

  2000–01

  510

  1.01

  2001–02

  538

  0.80

  2002–03

  574

  0.86

  Expenditure before 1998–99 is on a cash basis. Spend figures from 1999–2000 are on a resource budgeting
  620W
  basis, and total net spend for these years includes NHS pensions. Figures are not therefore directly comparable across the period.

  No amount is allocated separately for research and development relating to public health. Research in this field is funded from the PRP and NHS research and development budgets and comprises most of the research carried out by the Department's arm's length bodies, including the Health Protection Agency. Management of much of the research on public health supported by NHS research and development funding is devolved and expenditure at project level is not held centrally by the Department. Details of on-going and recently completed research projects funded by, or of interest to, the NHS are available on the national research register at www.doh.gov.uk/research/nrr.htm.

  Security Passes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many security passes have been reported(a) lost and (b) stolen by staff in his Department in the last 12 months. [144593]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [pursuant to her reply on 5 January 2004, Official Report, column 208W]: I regret my previous response was incorrect. The response should read as follows:

  "From the records available, we estimate that about 110 Department of Health headquarters building photo passes have been lost or stolen in the period 17 December 2002 to 16 December 2003."

  Shellfish
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the latest scientific advice he has received on the testing of shellfish for toxins. [146367]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 8 January 2003]: The testing of shellfish for toxins is a public health matter, which falls within the policy responsibility of the Food Standards Agency (FSA).

  Unusual results have been observed over the last two years in tests for diarrhetic shellfish poisoning toxins under the statutory monitoring programmes, which point to the possible presence of a new neurotoxin. These have therefore resulted in the temporary closure, from time to time, of some shellfish harvesting waters, as a precautionary measure to ensure that public health continues to be protected. The FSA is pursuing an extensive programme of work to resolve the issues associated with these findings.

  Skin Cancer
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of how the two week wait rule for skin cancer has affected the waiting times for the treatment of urgent non-cancerous skin conditions. [145144]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 5 January 2003]: The two week outpatient waiting time standard was introduced for urgent cases of suspected cancer from December 2000. Performance data is published

  621W
  quarterly and currently (as at 30 September 2003) shows that 98.7 per cent. of patients urgently referred for suspected skin cancer who fall within the standard were seen within 14 days.

  By 2005, there will be targets of a maximum one month wait from diagnosis to treatment and a maximum two month wait from urgent general practitioner referral to treatment for all cancers.

  Comparable data on urgent referrals for non-cancer skin conditions is not collected centrally and therefore no assessment has been made of the impact of the cancer two week wait upon waiting times for treatment of non-cancer skin conditions.

  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness and benefits of rapid referral clinics for skin cancer. [145145]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 5 January 2003]: The Department has commissioned the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) to develop guidance on skin tumours, including melanoma, for use in the National Health Service in England and Wales. This guidance will advise on the optimal configuration of diagnostic and treatment services for patients with skin cancer. In developing this guidance, NICE will assess the best available evidence in order to make recommendations on the optimum provision of skin

  Hospital, Public Health Medicine and Community Health Services (HCHS) Staff, General Medical Practitioners, Practice staff and Non-Medical staff employed within the specified PCTs, as at 30 September 2002—England

  Number (headcount)

  of which:

  of which:

  of which:

  of which:

  All staff

  HCHS Staff

  Medical Staff

  Dental Staff

  All General Medical Practitioners 2

  NHS PlanGPs3

  Unrestricted Principal and Equivalents (UPEs)4

  5AF North Peterborough PCT

  708

  4

  2

  2

  58

  57

  57

  5AG South Peterborough PCT

  453

  8

  8

  —

  59

  52

  52

  5GF Huntingdonshire PCT

  1,045

  81

  72

  9

  104

  89

  89

  5JH Cambridge City PCT

  806

  7

  7

  —

  100

  86

  86

  5JJ South Cambridgeshire PCT

  562

  17

  12

  5

  77

  63

  62

  5JK East Cambridgeshire and Fenland PCT

  1,108

  1

  1

  —

  90

  78

  78

  RCX Kings Lynn and Wisbech Hospitals NHS Trust

  2,360

  214

  205

  9

  —

  —

  —

  RGN Peterborough Hospitals NHS Trust

  3,446

  282

  269

  13

  —

  —

  —

  RGP James Paget Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,776

  205

  193

  12

  —

  —

  —

  RGQ Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust

  3,527

  297

  280

  17

  —

  —

  —

  RGR West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust

  2,582

  201

  198

  3

  —

  —

  —

  RGT Addenbrookes NHS Trust

  6,186

  754

  740

  14

  —

  —

  —

  RM1 Norfolk and Norwich Health Care NHS Trust

  5,277

  521

  504

  17

  —

  —

  —

  RQQ Hinchingbrooke Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,585

  121

  121

  —

  —

  —

  —

  of which:

  Practice staffs5 employed by UPEs

  Total Non-Medical Staff

  Professionally qualified clinical staff

  Support to clinical staff

  NHS infrastructure support

  Other and unknown

  5AF North Peterborough PCT

  231

  415

  214

  154

  47

  —

  5AG South Peterborough PCT

  148

  238

  140

  62

  36

  —

  5GF Huntingdonshire PCT

  314

  546

  291

  139

  116

  —

  5JH Cambridge City PCT

  291

  408

  208

  157

  37

  6

  5JJ South Cambridgeshire PCT

  247

  221

  130

  48

  43

  —

  5JK East Cambridgeshire and Fenland PCT

  260

  757

  387

  287

  83

  —

  RCX Kings Lynn and Wisbech Hospitals NHS Trust

  —

  2,146

  902

  790

  451

  3

  RGN Peterborough Hospitals NHS Trust

  —

  3,164

  1,447

  1,270

  441

  6

  RGP James Paget Healthcare NHS Trust

  —

  2,571

  992

  1,077

  501

  1

  RGQ Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust

  —

  3,230

  1,722

  1,165

  343

  —

  RGR West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust

  –

  2,381

  1,175

  834

  372

  —

  RGT Addenbrookes NHS Trust

  —

  5,432

  2,984

  1,767

  681

  —

  RMI Norfolk and Norwich Health Care NHS Trust

  —

  4,756

  2,410

  1,932

  409

  5

  RQQ Hinchingbrooke Healthcare NHS Trust

  —

  1,464

  685

  462

  315

  2

  622W
  cancer services. This will include consideration of a variety of settings and workforce roles. The guidance is due to be published in March 2005.

  In addition, we have asked NICE to update the referral guidelines for suspected cancer published by the Department in April 2000, to assist general practitioners in determining those patients who are most likely to have cancer and therefore need to be referred urgently to see a specialist. Both the existing guidance and the revised guidance will address skin cancers.

  St. George's Hospital, London
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what investigations(a) have taken place and (b) are underway into waiting lists at St. Georges' Hospital, London. [145768]

  Mr. Hutton
  South West London Strategic Health Authority has advised me that no investigations have taken place or are underway into waiting lists at St. George's Hospital, London.

  Staffing (Cambridgeshire)
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) medical and clinical. staff and (b) other types of staff were employed in the NHS in Cambridgeshire according to the most recently available survey of staffing. [146451]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  623W
  1 Excludes Hospital Medical Hospital Practitioners and Hospital Medical Clinical Assistants, most of whom are GPs working part time in hospitals.

  2 All Practitioners include UPEs, Restricted Principals, Assistants, GP Registrars, Salaried Doctors (Para 52 SFA), PMS Other and GP Retainers.

  3 NHS Plan GPs includes GMS Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs. PMS Salaried GPs, Restricted Principals, Assistants, Salaried Doctors and PMS Other.

  4 UPEs include GMS Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs and PMS Salaried GPs.

  5 Practice Staff includes Practice Nurses, Direct Patient Care, Admin and Clerical and Other.

  Source:

  Department of Health Medical and Dental Workforce Census

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics

  Department of Health Non-medical Workforce Census

  Strategic Health Authorities
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff were employed by strategic health authorities in(a) April 2002 and (b) April 2003; and what the projected figures are for (i) April and (ii) October 2004. [145370]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table for September 2002, the latest available data. Projected figures are not available.

  NHS medical, dental and non-medical staff directly employed in strategic health authorities—England, as at 30 September 2002

  Numbers (headcount)

  All HCHS staff (HCHS medical, dental and non-medical)

  England

  3,968

  Q01

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire SHA

  40

  Q02

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire SHA

  57

  Q03

  Essex SHA

  103

  Q04

  North West London SHA

  69

  Q05

  North Central London SHA

  104

  Q06

  North East London SHA

  140

  Q07

  South East London SHA

  84

  Q08

  South West London SHA

  43

  009

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear SHA

  203

  Q10

  County Durham and Tees Valley SHA

  84

  Q11

  North and East Yorks and North Lines SHA

  66

  Q12

  West Yorkshire SHA

  152

  Q13

  Cumbria and Lancashire SHA

  36

  Q14

  Greater Manchester SHA

  301

  Q15

  Cheshire and Merseyside SHA

  487

  Q16

  Thames Valley SHA

  115

  Q17

  Hampshire and Isle Of Wight SHA

  188

  Q18

  Kent and Medway SHA

  238

  Q19

  Surrey and Sussex SHA

  333

  Q20

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire SHA

  59

  Q21

  South West Peninsula SHA

  75

  Q22

  Dorset and Somerset SHA

  101

  Q23

  South Yorkshire SHA

  257

  Q24

  Trent SHA

  142

  Q25

  Leics, Northants and Rutland SHA

  188

  Q26

  Shropshire and Staffordshire SHA

  62

  Q27

  Birmingham and the Black Country SHA

  166

  Q28

  Coventry, Warwicks, Herefords and Worcs SHA

  75

  Sources:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census,

  Department of Health non-medical workforce census

  Top-up Fees
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether foundation hospitals will be permitted to pay the(a) tuition and (b) top-up fees of recruits. [144394]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 17 December 2003]: National health service foundation trusts, like all NHS trusts, would in principle have the power to pay both the tuition and top-up fees of recruits. It would be up to each NHS foundation trust as to whether and in what
  624W
  circumstances to do so. Section 18(1) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act gives NHS foundation trusts the power to do anything which appears to it to be necessary or desirable for the purposes of or in connection with its functions.

  Transplant Services
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures his Department has put in place to counter the shortages of(a) transplant consultants and (b) critical care nurses in the NHS outlined in the Transplant Framework for England, Saving Lives, Valuing Donors. [144891]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The NHS Plan set challenging workforce objectives to increase staff numbers significantly and redesign jobs with more staff working differently. The Department has arranged for 11 additional surgical training places to be funded specifically to train transplant surgeons.

  Between September 1999 and March 2002, a net increase of 28,740 nurses working in the national health service has meant the NHS Plan target for nurses, 20,000 by 2004, has been achieved early. The NHS has a plan to recruit an additional 35,000 nurses by 2008—a proportion of whom will be working in critical care.

  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what system will be put in place to monitor and evaluate the measurements of progress outlined in the Transplant Framework for England, Saving Lives, Valuing Donors; and what action he will take in the event of primary care trusts failing to make progress;. [144892]

  (2) what role he envisages charities and voluntary organisations will play in the implementation of the Transplant Framework for England, Saving Lives, Valuing Donors; [144893]

  (3) whether his Department will be providing additional funding for the implementation of the recommendations outlined in the Transplant Framework for England, Saving Lives, Valuing Donors. [144932]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  UK Transplant already closely monitors most aspects of organ donation and transplantation. The information UK Transplant collects and analyses on organ donation and transplant activity is available on its web-site at www.uktransplant.org.uk. In developing their transplant services, it will be for primary care trusts and specialist commissioning teams to take account of local needs and priorities to allocate resources and benchmark their performance against published activity data. As organ transplantation is of proven clinical
  625W
  and cost effectiveness, maximising donation and transplantation rates will be important for both patients and the National Health Service.

  We envisage that voluntary organisations will continue to play an important part in research, raising awareness about organ donation, particularly by encouraging people to join the organ donor register and supporting the families of donors and transplant recipients.

  The Department has provided around £7 million via UK Transplant since 2001 to boost organ donation through the employment of 35 donor liaison nurses working with staff in critical units to help identify potential donors and how to approach and support relatives; 23 living donor co-ordinators working with families considering live donation and funding 10 non-heartbeating programmes to increase the number of organs from non-heartbeating donors.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce an opt-out scheme for organ donation. [145427]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Government policy on organ donation is one of informed consent, not presumed consent (opt out). The Government reviewed the law on the removal, retention and use of human tissues and organs and tissues during 2003 and the resulting Human Tissue Bill, which was laid before Parliament on 2 December 2003, does not propose to change this policy.

  Variant CJD
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the risk of possible infection with variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease from large pools of plasma; and what the likely effects are of dilution of infected blood products in large pools. [145450]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department has commissioned a risk assessment to consider these questions and findings are not yet available.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department takes to trace recipients of blood donated by donors identified as having(a) variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease and (b) other blood-borne diseases. [145453]
  626W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Transfusion Medicine Epidemiology Review is a collaborative project between the United Kingdom National CJD Surveillance Unit (NCJDSU) and United Kingdom Blood Services (UKBS). The main purpose is to investigate whether there is any evidence that Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease or variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease may have been transmitted via the blood supply.

  Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease cases are notified to the UKBS by NCJDSU; a search establishes whether any have acted as donors. Donation records are checked and all components traced through hospital records. Details of all identified recipients are forwarded to NCJDSU for subsequent checking.

  In the reverse procedure, patients with variant CJD reported to have received blood transfusions are identified by NCJDSU and notified to UKBS. Details of transfusions are traced through hospital records and relevant blood donors identified. The identity of donors is notified to NCJDSU for subsequent checking.

  The safety of blood used in the National Health Service is of paramount importance. Every reasonable step has been taken to minimise any risks during blood transfusion. The current high levels of safety are achieved by screening out potential high risk donors and then further testing of every unit of donated blood for HIV, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, Human T Cell Leukaemia Virus, and Syphilis before it is released to NHS hospitals.

  Waiting Times (Cambridgeshire)
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the average waiting time for a first consultant appointment in Cambridgeshire in each year since 1999. [146450]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Information relating to national health service trust waiting times, including trusts in Cambridge, for first consultation appointments can be obtained from the Department's at www.doh.gov.uk/waitingtimes/.

  The Trusts in Cambridgeshire are:

  Addenbrooke's Hospital NHS Trust

  Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust

  Hinchingbrooke Health Care NHS Trust

  Papworth Hospital NHS Trust

  Peterborough Hospitals NHS Trust

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Investors Scheme
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes)
  The investor category of the immigration rules was introduced on 1 October 1994 for investors who wish to come to the UK to invest £1 million. This must include a £750,000 investment in UK Government bonds, or in share or loan capital in active and trading UK registered companies as set out within the immigration rules. At present the UK attracts around 26 investors to the UK a year, providing around £26 million of investment in the UK a year.

  As part of the Government's approach to sensible, managed migration where it is in the UK's economic interest, we are revising this category in the light of the experience of other countries who have similar investment routes. The Government recognises that it is important to have effective opportunities for major investors and that the category could be improved to attract more high net worth migrants to come to the UK.

  We have decided to allow overseas investors in future to use loaned money from an authorised financial institution (those regulated by the Financial Services Authority) where the potential investor has a personal net worth of £2 million. In Canada, similar changes were made to their investors category resulting in an increase in investors moving to Canada. The UK hopes to emulate this success.

  Investors whose funds are tied up in illiquid assets and investors who prefer to invest their own money in higher interest investment products will now be able to apply to enter the UK as a result of these changes.

  The revised arrangements for the investors route will be reflected in the immigration rules on 13 January 2004.

  Crime Victims (Compensation and Support)
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  I am today publishing a consultation paper entitled "Compensation and Support for Victims of Crime". This sets out proposals to provide a wider range of support for victims of crime and to amend the criminal injuries compensation scheme.

  We are determined to deliver a better deal for victims and witnesses and to provide a wider package of support. The consultation paper proposes the establishment of a new victims fund in England and Wales to provide a broader and more effective range of services for victims and witnesses. Part of the Fund will be used for voluntary sector support to victims.

  Money for the fund will come principally from making offenders pay more towards compensation and support for victims through placing a surcharge on
  18WS
  criminal convictions and fixed penalty notices for criminal offences. It will also come from resources released from changes to the criminal injuries compensation scheme.

  The paper also asks for views on how best to compensate workers who are injured in the course of duty more fairly and more efficiently.

  These changes are expected to release some £25 million to provide a wider range of services for victims of crime.

  We want compensation to victims to be targeted in the right way, and to come from the most appropriate sources. We believe that the proposals set out in the consultation paper should help us achieve that. They will build on the measures set out in the National Strategy for Victims and Witnesses, published last year.

  We are also committed to ensuring that the criminal injuries compensation scheme is administered as efficiently and cost-effective as it possibly can be and are taking forward measures to achieve this.

  We welcome comments on all the proposals and ideas set out in the consultation paper. We will consider all responses carefully. Subject to the outcome of the consultation exercise, we propose to legislate to make the changes, where necessary, through amendments to the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill currently before Parliament.

DEFENCE

  Civil Contingency Reaction Forces
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  Civil contingency reaction forces (CCRFs) achieved full operating capability by 31 December 2003 as planned. Fourteen CCRFs are now available to support the civil authorities if they ask for military assistance.

  The emergency services would lead on the response to any incident and can call on a range of support, which includes the specially trained CCRFs as required. A programme of exercises between local CCRFs and emergency services began in 2003 to test how they would work together in an emergency. CCRFs will provide general duties support consistent with the established military aid framework, and the normal Ministry of Defence command structure.

  It is important to remember that CCRFs are just one of the ways in which the armed forces can provide support, and that support itself would be part of a much wider response.

  Veterans Initiative Education Programme
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  I am pleased to announce the launch today of a new collaborative education programme called "Their Past Your Future" across the United Kingdom. I am grateful to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Skills and for Culture, Media and Sport for their enthusiastic support for this project, all the funding for which is being provided by the national lottery new opportunities fund. The programme will enable young people at school the opportunity to research and understand the
  19WS
  role played by service veterans and civilian groups in ensuring our national security and survival. It will focus on the important Second World War commemorative events taking place in 2004–05, but is intended to develop into a long-term project recognising the importance of peace and reconciliation as well as conflict. A website will provide information about the programme and ways of linking up veterans and eye-witnesses with schools so that children can draw on those memories and experiences for their own understanding. There will be resources for schools to use in the citizenship and history curricula and this will also stretch out into other subject areas such as English and Geography. Opportunities for young people to participate in commemorations at home and abroad are also central to this programme. As part of this last element, there will be an initial research-based competition available with a prize of participation in the D-Day commemorations in June 2004.

  This programme is a good example of collaboration on veterans-related issues across the official and voluntary sectors. It was developed as part of the veterans initiative but the Imperial War Museum will lead this project. Key partners include the Department for Education and Skills, the Confederation of British Service and Ex-Service Organisations, the Royal British Legion, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and Service Museums as well as the Ministry of Defence.

  As I said before, I am particularly pleased that the national lottery new opportunities fund has undertaken to provide funding and that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is also closely involved in the collaborative effort that is necessary for a project of this nature. This is an excellent example of lottery money being used for a good cause.

  I hope that projects of this kind will help future generations to remember and understand the experiences and sacrifices of veterans of all types and their role in our nation's history. I also urge right hon. and hon. Members to make schools and colleges in their constituencies aware of this project.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Pension Credit
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith)
  I can now provide the third monthly progress report on the take-up of pension credit, which became payable on 6 October 2003.

  There are now 2.12 million pensioner households (2.53 million individuals) being paid pension credit, including 60,000 new pension credit households (79,000 individuals) in December 2003. As at 31 December 2003, there are 1.44 million households (1.71 million individuals) now receiving more money as a result of the introduction of pension credit. The pension credit application line, at our four sites across the country, has received 1.84 million calls since it became operational on 7 April 2003 and 96 per cent. of calls have been answered within 30 seconds. The average Pension Credit award is £44.20 per week.
  20WS
  Our direct mail campaign is continuing, supported by a major advertising campaign on TV and in the press which began in September last year. We are continuing to work with organisations such as Help The Aged, Age Concern and Citizens Advice, amongst others, both at a national and local level, to encourage eligible people to take up their entitlement.

  There is plenty of time for pensioners to apply for pension credit. To ensure that pensioners do not lose out, there is a twelve-month backdating provision until October of this year. This will allow applications to be backdated to October 2003, where entitlement exists, or to the date entitlement begins if this is later.

  I am placing in the Library a report showing progress so far, including regional breakdowns of the number of pension credit households and numbers of pension credit awards in Parliamentary constituencies in Great Britain. Copies of the report are also available for hon. Members in the Vote Office.

  I am also placing in the Library a summary of recent independent research which found high levels of customer satisfaction with the pension credit application line and with the application process overall.

TREASURY

  Shipbuilders' Relief
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey)
  I am today confirming the abolition, in full and with immediate effect, of shipbuilders' relief.

  Council Regulation (EC) No. 1540/98 which established new rules on aid to shipbuilding requires the phasing out of state operating aid within the community. The regulation specifically refers to commercial vessels and fishing vessels for export from the community and stipulates that state operating aid be abolished with effect from 31 December 2000. HM Customs and Excise will continue to honour claims for contracts signed on or before 31 December 2000, in respect of such vessels.

  Shipbuilders' relief has additionally been payable in respect of warships and other fishing vessels. However, the purpose of EC Regulation 1540/98 was to bring an end to state operating aid in the Community and in order to comply with the spirit of the EC regulation and with state aid law, these other categories of vessel must also lose their eligibility, and will do so from today. Customs will therefore honour claims for contracts signed on or before 12 January 2004 in respect of such categories of vessel not explicitly included in the text of EC regulation 1540/98.

  The Government believes that the best way to support a strong shipbuilding industry in the United Kingdom is not through providing such old-style operating subsidies but by promoting international competition and through support for enterprise, research and development, science and innovation and tackling skills needs.

  The DTI has provided a £3 million grant to the Link Shipbuilding Research Project being led by the Shipbuilders' and Shiprepairers' Association. Launched in June 2001, this is a five-year project with total funding

  21WS
  of £6 million, which combines academic studies with master classes tailored to the needs of individual yards. The scheme is making good progress, and the yards involved have attributed recent improvements in business activity and productivity to the master classes.

  To support skills development across the UK economy, the Government is setting up new councils to identify and help deliver the skills that employers need. The Science, Engineering and Manufacturing Technologies (SEMTA) Sector Skills Council, which covers the shipbuilding industry, has already been established. SEMTA is preparing a sector skills
  22WS
  agreement which will identify the skill needs, priorities and scope for collective action by the employers it represents.

  To further support skills and workforce development in shipbuilding staff, the Government is prepared to invest up to an additional £500,000 to support SEMTA on the implementation of its sector skills agreement, where it applies to shipbuilding. This additional funding will be conditional on the SEMTA sector skills agreement being approved by Government, and founded on the clear commitment to collaborative action from shipbuilding employers as well as unions and other stakeholders.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers— Read by the Lord Bishop of St Albans.

Baroness Hale of Richmond
The Right Honourable Dame Brenda Marjorie Hale, DBE, a Lord Justice of Appeal, having been appointed a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and created Baroness Hale of Richmond, of Easby in the County of North Yorkshire, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Flowers and the Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve.
Lord Triesman
David Maxim Triesman, Esquire, having been created Baron Triesman, of Tottenham in the London Borough of Haringey, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Jay of Paddington and the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.

Honours System
2.48 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs asked Her Majesty's Government:
What will be the extent of the proposed consultation on changes to the honours system
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, we want to make sure that all those who have a view to express can do so and, in the first instance, anyone who wishes to suggest ways in which the honours system might be improved should write to the Ceremonial Officer at the Cabinet Office.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Does she agree that long before the recent media interest in the honours system there had been long-standing concern about its operation? Does she further agree that, in addition to transparency, it would be welcome if there was not a hierarchy of honours under which top people receive top honours and ordinary people receive honours at the lower end of the scale? Would it not be more democratic and in keeping with modern Britain, as it is now, if we had a system which reflected that?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend is right. We are always considering ways of improving the system. I am sure that my noble friend will be pleased to know that up to 50 per cent of those on a list are engaged in voluntary service or voluntary work of
370
some kind. I am sure that the nature of honours and the question of whether there should be a hierarchy of honours will be addressed by the review.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, we on these Benches very much welcome the proposed study into the honours system to be undertaken by Sir Hayden Phillips, Permanent Secretary to the Department for Constitutional Affairs, and we hope that a wide range of people will be invited to give evidence to that inquiry. However, in view of the extraordinary story that appeared in yesterday's Sunday Mirror, can the Leader of the House assure us that, in appointing political Peers, the Government will carefully respect the promise made in the White Paper and elsewhere that the share of votes cast at the last general election will be a significant factor in determining how many new Peers are to be appointed and the parties with which they are likely to be associated?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware that that issue was raised as part of the recent consultation process. Legislation will come before this House and that matter will be addressed through that process
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether the consultation briefing will include information about how other countries with honours systems conduct the process and, in particular, what degree of transparency exists in those systems? I think, for example, of Australia.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am not aware of briefing material which includes information about the systems in other countries, although I am sure that that information is publicly available. However, I shall ensure that the noble Baroness's point is passed on to the relevant part of the Cabinet Office.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, will it be borne in mind that, for the purposes of the review, Britain no longer has an empire?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I believe that we are all well aware of that.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the Research Defence Society. Can the Minister assure us that there will be no repetition of the extraordinary comment made on the last occasion that honours were awarded? Then, an eminent scientist, who is eminent enough to be head of the MRC, was disqualified because he was controversial, having been attacked by nutcases and terrorists. Will the Minister assure us that the Government's policy for scientists to be more open in their work will not be undermined in future and that, in fact, the views of scientists will be given due consideration?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that it is a long-standing tradition that we do riot comment on leaks. However, the noble Lord will also

371
be aware that the assessment committee, which reports to the moderating committee, considers the issue of science. This Government strongly support the role of science and scientists in this country.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, is the Leader of the House aware that, although attention is drawn to the very few honours that go to pop stars and sportsmen and women, the vast majority of honours at every level are much appreciated not only by the recipients but also by many others who value the system as it is? It is time to move cautiously.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I believe it is right that the work undertaken by people across the country is honoured. As I said in response to my noble friend Lord Dubs, just under 50 per cent of those honoured are involved in voluntary work. A little over 50 per cent of those on the list are public servants of one kind or another, including doctors, teachers and people working in local government, the police, the fire service and so on.

Health Visitors
2.54 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones asked Her Majesty's Government:
What professional protection of the title "health visitor" will exist after 1 April 2004.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, when the new register opens later in 2004, the designated titles of the three parts of the new register will be the protected titles. It is anticipated that those will be nurses, midwives and community public health nurses. Public protection will be provided because anyone proposing to work as a health visitor must be registered on the community public health nurse part of the register.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, despite his assertion and despite successive ministerial assurances, under this Government there has been a continual erosion and devaluation of health visiting as a profession in its own right. Is it not a fact that, in future, people can be described as, or call themselves, "health visitors" without having the current competencies expected of a health visitor?
Lord Warner: My Lords, as I indicated in my reply, the public will be protected by health visitors meeting the competency requirements of the Nursing and Midwifery Council and those requirements will be placed on the third part of the register. The Government have done nothing other than encourage people to enter health visiting and we support the work of health visitors.
Earl Howe: My Lords, is it not right, however, that the third part of the register will include a number of disciplines, including that of health visitors? Is not the key point in this context that an employer should be in a position to know whether an individual who applies for a job as a health visitor has attained the required level of competence? Therefore, what steps are being taken to ensure that that can happen?
Lord Warner: My Lords, it is for the Nursing and Midwifery Council to identify the competence of people who are placed on the register. It is for someone who employs a person as, say, a health visitor, to establish that that person has the qualifications which he says he has and to ensure that he is competent to fill the advertised post. Nothing in these changes puts the public at risk in either of those dimensions. However, I can assure the noble Earl that I understand that, in future, the Nursing and Midwifery Council is proposing to identify separately existing health visitors and those who complete an approved health-visiting course leading to registration by an annotation on the register. I shall certainly ask my officials to work with the Nursing and Midwifery Council.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, is the issue of competencies related to the fact that, under the current proposals, specialist community public health nurses will not require competencies in the following areas: children, child development, parents, families, social well-being, positive health and resiliency factors? On the register, those competencies will not he required. How can that possibly protect the public?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I cannot go into detail on that issue, but I believe that the noble Lord knows that the Nursing and Midwifery Council has undertaken a comprehensive consultation exercise both on the parts of the register and on the competencies to be obtained by those to be registered. As I understand it, that consultation is nearly complete and I expect to hear the outcome from the Nursing and Midwifery Council in the future. However, although we gave our comments to the Nursing and Midwifery Council, it is not for the Government to intervene in that process.
Lord Imbert: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the considerable disquiet among existing health visitors that, in future, when the new register comes into being, people who have received theoretical training but not practical nursing training will be appointed to do the job of health visitors as it is being done today?
Lord Warner: My Lords, it is already the case that a health visitor will have obtained a qualification either as a nurse or as a midwife before undertaking the extra health visitor training. As I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, it is a matter for the Nursing and Midwifery Council to identify the competence of individual people to be placed on the register. That is not something for the Government to do; it is a professional registration matter.

China: EU Arms Trade Embargo
2.59 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester Lord Faulkner of Worcester asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will support the resolution passed by the European Parliament on 18 December 2003 to maintain the European Union embargo on trade in arms with the People's Republic of China.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the European Council agreed on 12 December 2003 to invite the General Affairs and External Relations Council to re-examine the question of the embargo on the sale of arms to China. Her Majesty's Government welcome the review, and Ministers are currently considering the United Kingdom's position. In the mean time, we shall continue fully to implement the arms embargo.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. She is aware that, in common with a number of Members of this House and another place, I visited Taiwan over the New Year. Does she agree that it would be quite wrong to drop the embargo on arms sales to the PRC until some progress is made with the development of human rights in the PRC, on which so little progress has been made in recent years, and until it drops its military threat against Taiwan? Should not the removal of the 500 missiles that are aimed at Taiwan be an absolute precondition for the resumption of any arms sales to the PRC? Do the Government believe that the defensive referendum, which is to be held in Taiwan in March, is entirely a matter for the people of Taiwan and not for the PRC?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I have indicated to your Lordships, the matter is under consideration among Ministers at the moment. I agree with my noble friend on the points that he raises and that human rights will be a very important issue in considering the lifting of the embargo. I am of course aware of the visit of my noble friend to Taiwan and I assure him that the Government attach great importance to the avoidance of conflict in the Taiwan Strait. We take every opportunity to convey to the Chinese Government, and through informal channels to the Taiwanese authorities, our strong opposition to the use of force or to any action that raises possible areas of tension across the Taiwan Strait. All the questions raised by my noble friend are important and they are precisely the issues that exercise Her Majesty's Government in coming to a decision on our position.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, while it must be recognised that these days the PRC Government are changing their attitude and are approaching their foreign policy in a rather different way, does not the Minister agree that in reviewing this matter it is not only a question of not using arms for internal
374
repression, but also a question of not selling arms to China that will be used to promote its re-export trade to the world arms market in which it is a major and quite dangerous player? Will the Minister pass on her views to her German colleague in the European Union that the idea being discussed in the EU of selling a plutonium plant to the People's Republic of China is a very bad one indeed?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe that our colleagues in Germany and France will press for a discussion on this matter when the General Affairs Council meets on 26 January. I remind the noble Lord that one of the views that I have heard expressed very forcefully is that in the event of a decision—of course it is some way off—to lift the arms embargo, the European Union code of practice on arms exports is a very effective means of limiting the arms trade. The noble Lord knows that increasing the possibility of internal repression mitigates against arms being exported. However, the questions raised by the noble Lord about the stability of the region or the possibility of enhancing conflict in the region are matters that would have to be considered very carefully under the EU code of practice, which in many ways is a better instrument for arms regulation.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister recall that in opposition the Labour Party was in favour of much tougher restrictions on arms sales? Should not the party push within the European Union for the EU not only to toughen up its already useful controls, but also to move for stricter global regulation of arms? Already there are too many surplus arms sloshing around the world. Could we trade off a move towards a removal of the embargo on China with a re-examination of the tightness of EU controls?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord will not be surprised to learn that those very thoughts exercise Her Majesty's Government at the moment. It is a negotiating stance that comprehended not only the issues of how the arms trade itself works around the world, but also the points raised by my noble friend a moment ago when considering human rights, which are the points that need to be considered. I say to the noble Lord that of course we were very tough on this issue in opposition, as we are in Government because we now have the European code, which this Government originally introduced, which we exhorted our colleagues in Europe to adopt and which I am happy to say is now something that runs not only for the United Kingdom, but also for all our colleagues in Europe. I believe that that is something of which to he proud.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, while welcoming the connection that the Minister has made between the arms trade and human rights, can she tell us when Her Majesty's Government last raised specific issues concerning political and religious violations of human rights with the Government of China, in particular the suppression of the Falung Gong, the

375
suppression of the underground House Church Movement in China, the occupation of Tibet, the suppression of political liberties and in particular the continuation of the one-child policy in China, a policy which makes it the only country in the world where it is illegal to have a brother or a sister and where women are forcibly sterilised when they do not accept the domestic laws?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the issues rightly raised by the noble Lord are precisely those that concern Her Majesty's Government. He has enumerated them. They are raised when Ministers from the United Kingdom have exchanges with their opposite numbers. I can think of numerous occasions. I am very happy to write to the noble Lord with the most recent examples of when those issues were raised. I would like the noble Lord to bear in mind that it is important that we continue to have this critical dialogue with the Chinese. As has been acknowledged elsewhere in the House, progress is being made on these issues, albeit not as much or as quickly as some would like. The possibility of looking again at some parts of our relationship with China allows us the opportunity to raise again the very important issues that the noble Lord has enumerated.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, does this argument take us right back to the issue of whether we should have a defence export scrutiny committee, about which the Government still have not made up their minds?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I know that my noble friend is an extremely eloquent advocate of such a committee. In some parts of government the points that he raises on that matter command a great deal of sympathy. However, the way in which we scrutinise the export of arms from this country is, as I know, extraordinarily detailed. I have seen that as a defence Minister, as a DTI Minister and now as a Foreign Office Minister. I assure him that when officials undertake the initial scrutiny, any export licences that are of real concern are referred to Ministers and we are accountable directly to Parliament for the decisions that we take. I believe that our system is a very robust one, although I agree with the noble Lord that, like most systems, it could always do with looking at again.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, would the Minister consider, at the same time as we look into ending the arms embargo, better measures to protect Taiwan from Chinese aggression in the future by enhancing her status in the international community? If we cannot recognise Taiwan as an independent country, which it is, in a legal sense, should we try to ensure the admission of Taiwan to international bodies such as the World Health Organisation?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I understand why the noble Lord raises those questions.
376
I understand that his motivation is entirely benign. However, I say to him that any recognition of that kind it would be a recognition that would cause some anxiety in Beijing—is bound to raise international tensions between Taiwan and China. Laudable as much of the motivation is behind his question, the noble Lord must also consider the outcomes of increasing the tension that would inevitably follow any such move.

Iran: Earthquake in Bam
3.9 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings Baroness Rawlings asked Her Majesty's Government:
What assistance they are offering to the reconstruction effort in Bam, Iran, in the aftermath of last month's earthquake.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we responded immediately with the deployment of search and rescue teams and £150,000 to the International Federation of the Red Cross. We sent 450 winter tents and shelter materials, funded two transport planes for internal movement of relief items and funded 20,000 doses of tetanus vaccines for the World Health Organisation. In total, we have provided some £900,000-worth of assistance. We are now considering contributions to the appeals of the United Nations and the International Federation of the Red Cross that will address immediate rehabilitation needs.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very full reply. As we did not have a Statement in your Lordships' House on the earthquake in Bam, I am so pleased that we won the topical Question today to give the Minister a chance to say something about this disaster. How long do Her Majesty's Government plan to maintain a presence in the country to help with the longer-term effects of the earthquake disaster?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, on the first comment of the noble Baroness, there was a full Written Ministerial Statement to Parliament on 5 January, which I hope she saw. It was repeated for this House.
Our ongoing commitment to the effects of the disaster will be done through our contributions to the UN appeal and the appeal from the International Federation of the Red Cross. The noble Baroness will be aware that we have no bilateral programme with Iran. It is a middle-income country. But we recognise that a substantial reconstruction effort will need to be undertaken. Of course we hope that the World Bank will also play a role.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, do the Government agree that the United Kingdom is in a position to provide excellent technical advice and practical help with new designs and construction kits for the reconstruction of buildings? Will the Government be providing funds for disaster

377
prevention in Barn and other areas of the world that are sensitive to natural disasters? I declare an interest as a member of the advisory committee on natural disasters.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, as I think I made clear in my opening Answer, we have not yet made a decision on the form that our medium-term support will take. It will partly be dependent on the two appeals that have been made, but also on the support given by other countries.
My noble friend is quite right: we have a good deal of technical advice that could be helpful. We have already been asked if we would supply mobile homes. Turkey has supplied some 900. We shall look at all requests and at the balance being provided by other donors, and make a decision accordingly.

Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [H.L.]
Lord Grocott: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Scotland, I have to admit to the House that there has been an error on the printed Motion today, which states:
"That it be an instruction to the Grand Committee to which the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 16,

Schedule 1,

Clause 17,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 18 to 22".

I apologise for the error. I shall not therefore be moving the Motion today. One will be moved tomorrow, which I hope will be impeccably accurate.
Motion not moved.

Business
Lord Grocott: My Lords, before we begin the debate, I shall do the usual arithmetic. There are more than 30 speakers today. We have a target rising time of 10 p.m. Should Back-Bench contributions be confined to no more than 11 minutes, we shall hit our target rising time.

Speakership of the House
3.12 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick Lord Lloyd of Berwick rose to move, That this House takes note of the report from the Committee on the Speakership of the House (HL Paper 199, Session 2002–03).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, noble Lords were appointed to sit as a Select Committee on 9 July 2003, and were instructed to report by the end of the Session, which we succeeded in doing, but—it must be said—only just.
I start by thanking my fellow members of the Select Committee, and say what an honour—one might even say a pleasure—it was to serve as their chairman. Of course I am sorry, as noble Lords would expect, that we were not unanimous on all aspects. Differences emerged only at a very late stage of our inquiry and I hope to persuade your Lordships that those differences, which are very real—I do not disguise that—nevertheless lie within a very narrow compass.
The report is only 10 pages long, so I shall assume that most Members of the House have read it, or at least have a idea of what the committee recommended. In those circumstances it would seem to me to serve no purpose to go through the report paragraph by paragraph. Instead, I plan to highlight what seem to be the main points and to deal in my reply with any other points that may arise during the debate. I appreciate that that is not the usual course to take on Select Committee reports, but the House might think it convenient on this occasion.
Before I turn to the report itself, there are two preliminary points that I should like to make. The first is that I hope that the House will concentrate on the merits or otherwise of the committee's report and not on the manner in which the Government announced their intentions on 12 June. This is, after all, a debate to take note of the report, not of the circumstances which surrounded the committee being set up.
Having said that, perhaps I may say where I personally stand on these matters, if only to get it out of the way. When the Bill abolishing the office of Lord Chancellor comes before the House I shall oppose it as forcefully as I can, just as I shall oppose the removal of the Law Lords. But that is a debate for another day; it is not a debate for today. As to the discourtesy done to the House on 12 June 2003, the late Lord Williams apologised to the House on 16 June, just four days later. There it should surely be left, at least for the time being.
The other background matter I mention is that of timing. It will of course arise only if the House approves the committee's report in principle. There are two views on timing. One view, which is advocated very forcefully by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is that we should not implement any change until the legislation is in force. The other view is that we could implement the report in advance of any legislation by amending Standing Order 18. That is, your Lordships will remember, the Standing Order which requires the Lord Chancellor to attend the House as Speaker. If we were to amend Standing Order 18, a new Speaker of the House of Lords could be elected before the legislation is implemented. He would then act alongside the Lord Chancellor, so long as that office exists. That would release the Lord Chancellor For his other duties in the mean time.
Those are the two contrasting views on timing. The report does not express any view one way or the other and nor do I. It is clearly miles outside the committee's terms of reference. The report only sets out the Lord Chancellor's evidence at the bottom of page 1, in which he said that he would continue as Speaker so long as the House so wishes.
I turn now to the few points I should make on the report itself. The most important recommendation by far on which the committee was unanimous—and I am sure all sides of the House will be very glad to hear this—was that the House should continue to be self-regulating. By that, it meant that, among other things, the responsibility for the maintaining of order should remain with the House as a whole and not with the new Speaker, as in the House of Commons. We do not want a Commons-type Speaker with endless points of order and all that woe. I cannot stress that too strongly at this stage.
So, what kind of Speaker do we want? Do we indeed want a Speaker at all? Logically, that is the first question. I think we do. For example, we will have to have a Speaker to replace the Lord Chancellor on ceremonial occasions—I think we all agree on that—but that is only the start.
There are other functions that I am sure we would all want the Speaker to perform on our behalf for which the Lord Chancellor has never had time in recent years. For example, he could represent us abroad—what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, called his ambassadorial role. He could receive and entertain distinguished foreign dignitaries on our behalf and visitors in general from overseas. He could speak on our behalf at home and help to raise our profile in the eyes of the public.
For all those activities, we will need a man or woman—I shall not repeat that over and over; from now on, "man" includes "woman"—of considerable stature. But perhaps more important than any of that is what someone called the Speaker's pastoral role— cannot remember whose expression that was. He could welcome new Members on their arrival in the House. He could teach them our ways, our customs. That would be a great deal for him to do.
Again, I have only mentioned part of what he might do. For example, he could act as a focus of all our activities. He could even ask our wives to dinner—once again, I include husbands in the expression "wives". I recommend that anyone who thinks that suggestion trivial reads what the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, said at question 73 of her evidence as showing the importance of that part of a Speaker's role, and what the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, said, when he referred to his "love and whisky" treatment of Members of the House of Commons. From time to time we could all do with that, so please read what those two experienced Speakers have to say on the subject. So, as I said, there is plenty for our new Speaker to do, if we have one.
There will also be the more humdrum roles: his role as Chairman of the House of Lords' Offices Committee and of the Procedure Committee, as well as performing a full stint on the Woolsack. The idea that all those activities could be performed by the Lord
380
Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees is simply not on. They are already at full stretch and have enough to do, so the conclusion is clear that we will need a Speaker.
That brings me to the next question: what the Speaker should be called. There are three possibilities. First, we could stick with the existing name, which is Lord Speaker.
It may not be generally known that the office of Lord Speaker is at least as old and possibly a good deal older than the Speaker of the House of Commons, so the House of Commons cannot claim priority over that name. In the early days, our Speaker was known as the "Prolocutor" or "Mouth of the House". For that information I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Roper. If your Lordships care to look it up, you will find our Speaker referred to in Standing Order 19 as the "Mouth of the House".
By convention, the office of Lord Speaker has for many centuries been held by the Lord Chancellor. But it was not always so. Until the reign of Henry Ill, it was held by an even grander functionary, called the Lord Justicier.
The relevance of all that is simply that there have always been and still are two separate offices: that of Lord Chancellor and that of Lord Speaker. That is why there are so many references to the Lord Speaker in the Companion and elsewhere; that is why we have Deputy Speakers. That being so, the onus must be on those who want to change an existing name to give some good reason.
The second possibility is of course to change the name to Lord Chancellor, if and when the name becomes available. That was the purpose of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, which is supported by many of your Lordships—the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde, Lord Wakeham, and many others— but I fear that it will not do. If the ancient office of Lord Chancellor is to be abolished by statute, I shall regret that deeply—probably more than anyone else in the House, for it is an office to which in my early days at the Bar I once aspired. I was like the private soldier with the field-marshal's baton in my knapsack.
Once the office is gone, we must recognise that fact. We cannot give it a sort of posthumous existence by transferring the name—the shell without the kernel—to what will inevitably be a much lesser office. It is said that to call him the Lord Chancellor will add dignity to the office of Lord Speaker. Again, I cannot agree. We must not become obsessed by names. The dignity of the office will depend on the man or woman we choose to fill it, not on the name by which he is called.
The third possibility is Lord Chairman, but there one at once runs into a difficulty. We already have a Lord Chairman of Committees, so I shall say no more about that. It could only add confusion if we were to call the Speaker the Lord Chairman of the House, or something of that kind.
That brings me back to the title of Lord Speaker, which is not only the existing name but the natural title. As for any possible confusion with the Speaker of

381
the House of Commons, the evidence of the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, on that point could not be clearer. She could see no risk, and we agreed.
I now come to the most contentious point, which is the subject of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. What do we want the Lord Speaker to do when he is sitting on the Woolsack? Do we want him to sit there,
"like patience on a monument",
or, as one member of the committee put it—less elegantly and without any reference to the present incumbent—like a sack of potatoes? Or do we want him to take an intelligent interest in what is going on and perform at least some of the functions currently performed by the Leader on behalf of the House as a whole?
The functions in question are so limited that one might well wonder why we are making any recommendation on that at all. The answer is straightforward: we are responding to the evidence that we heard—especially the evidence of the late Lord Williams.
I shall start with Private Notice Questions, which is one matter that may be transferred. There are not many of them these days—perhaps three a year and seven or 10 that are refused—but Private Notice Questions can raise matters of acute political sensitivity. Lord Williams told us that, in his view, it was wrong in principle—objectionable—that the decision whether to allow Private Notice Questions should be taken a member of the Government. Others agreed, including the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra—indeed it was the one matter on which the entire Liberal Democrat Party was apparently able to reach a clear view. One can always get round points of principle. The Leader could, and no doubt does, discuss matters with her opposite numbers. But if Lord Williams regarded it as objectionable on principle, we should take that very seriously.
We found Lord Williams's evidence on Question Time compelling. I am sorry to refer to him again, but on any view he was an outstanding Leader of the House. The rest of the House did not have the opportunity that we had to hear him give his evidence. He did so clearly with the interests of the House in mind, not those of the Government or any government. He said that he sometimes found it invidious to choose the next supplementary question; not always—very often not—but sometimes. If Lord Williams, with all his panache, found it invidious, what, one wonders, would go through the mind of a relatively junior government Whip?
Lord Williams was supported on all sides of the committee—by the noble Lords, Lord Jenkin of Roding and Lord Boston, the noble Baronesses, Lady Whitaker and Lady Ramsay, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, not to mention the noble Baronesses, Lady Boothroyd and Lady Williams, in oral evidence. There was evidence the other way, notably that of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. A
382
very comprehensive memorandum was prepared by the noble Lords, Lord Chalfont and Lord Chadlington, with which many members agreed. We took into account all the evidence and came to the view that Lord Williams was right, and that the Leader's function at Question Time could, and should, be transferred to the Speaker with advantage to the House and no loss of self-regulation.
Lord Williams made a further final point: that the Speaker should be regarded as the guardian of the Companion. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, hit on very much the same idea. We found that a helpful concept, but it depends on the content of the concept and on one's own view of how well self-regulation currently works. Views on that differ. Some think that it works well; others, including the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, if he will forgive me For saying so, take a more jaundiced view.
Older Members look back to a golden age of deference and universal courtesy, but it was not ever thus. Lord Campbell, in Lives of the Lord Chancellors of England, lamented that the House of Lords, which was supposed to be the most august assembly in the world, was probably the most disorderly—that was in 1845. There was not a great golden age. I am too recent a Member to express any view on the subject, but I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, who unfortunately cannot be here today. He said that he thought that the House was working well but getting ragged around the edges. One sees what he means. We all know the sort of supplementary question that starts, "I thank the Minister for his reply, but I wonder would he not agree with my views, which are as follows?", to which the Minister replies at equally great length, so every Starred Question becomes a mini-debate. We all know that that is wrong and not in accordance with the Companion. If we all obeyed the rules, as Lord Williams was so fond of saying, there would be time for everyone, even the newer Members and those Cross-Benchers all around me who are too shy to join in a shouting match.
That is where a Speaker might be able to help self-regulation and lead us back on to the path of righteousness, but always by gentle persuasion—perhaps the carrot but never the stick. I hope that I have said enough to set the ball rolling. I greatly look forward to the debate. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report from the Committee on the Speakership of the House. (HL Paper 199, Session 2002–03). —(Lord Lloyd of Berwick.)
3.34 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the whole House will wish me to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and all the members of the committee for their work. It was a challenging brief, and they have delivered a report on time. There are different views on the report's recommendations, but I think that we can all agree that the report is clear and, if I may agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, commendably short. At my request, the noble

383
and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, held a question-and-answer session for Peers in December to answer any questions on the report, and I thank the noble and learned Lord for that.
The purpose of the debate is to help us to judge the feelings of the House on this important issue. With the permission of the House, I will have an opportunity to comment on points raised during the debate, before the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, replies, so I will keep my opening comments brief.
Let me first explain the proposed procedure for taking the matter forward. Today's debate will allow all views to be expressed. After the debate, I will table a Motion to approve the report, with or without qualifications. That Motion will of course be amendable and divisible, and will allow the House to take substantive decisions. The Procedure Committee will then meet to bring forward any necessary changes to Standing Orders and to fill in any points of detail not covered in the Lloyd report. If the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, were agreed to, that procedure would be short cut and the House would have rejected the Lloyd report.
Before I go any further, I wish to comment on terminology. One of the issues to be debated is what a new Speaker should be called. Different views have been expressed. I propose to refer to the "Speaker", because the Lloyd report does, and because it is the term already used, albeit infrequently. But that is only convenient shorthand; I do not mean to prejudice the debate or any decision of the House.
I hope that the House will find it helpful if I set out my view, as Leader of the House, of the proposals in the Lloyd report. In almost every respect I find them acceptable, if that is what the House decides. In particular, I believe that a Speakership as described in the report is fully consistent with self-regulation and will strengthen self-regulation rather than weaken it. I believe that the role of Speaker set out in the report will be a worthwhile one to which many Members will aspire. I am in no doubt that the proposed Speakership will be very different from that in another place. I support the report's proposed procedure for electing the Speaker.
I strongly support the proposal to transfer to the Speaker my functions as Leader of the House regarding Private Notice Questions and the sub judice rule, the role of helping to sort out the order in which noble Lords intervene at Question Time and the Government Front Bench's role as guardian of the Companion. My Front-Bench colleagues and I discharge those functions as effectively and impartially as we can, but from time to time situations of perceived conflict of interest are bound to arise. I feel, as strongly as the late Lord Williams did, that the House as a whole will be better served if those functions are transferred to a Speaker and Deputies who will be expert and authoritative.
Baroness Boothroyd: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. She is now telling us of the responsibilities of which she would be happy to divest herself. Would she think it appropriate for a new Speaker to draw up the list of speakers for our general debates rather than leave it to the usual channels?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, that matter was not in the report and is not before the House at present, but I would be prepared to consider it, if the House wished to take it forward. I assure noble Lords that I see this very much as a House matter.
I said that the Motion that I will bring forward at a later stage will be to approve the report, with or without qualifications. If this debate suggests that there might be consensus around some variation to the recommendations proposed in the report, that will need to be considered, and after consultation with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and the usual channels, it may be incorporated into any Motion.
I will give notice of one respect in which I will invite the House to depart from the detail of the Lloyd report. The report proposes in paragraph 38 that the Speaker,
"should take part in the Royal Commissions at the start of each Parliament and the end of each session".
I hesitate to take issue with the committee and its noble and learned Chairman, but I do not believe that this would be appropriate. The commission is traditionally made up of Members of this House taking part as Privy Counsellors, not as Peers. It is the means by which the Crown, as one part of Parliament, addresses the other parts, the two Houses, when the Queen is not present. On such occasions, the Speaker of the other place is with his House; he leads them from their Chamber to the Bar of this one. On such occasions, our Speaker should be with us, in our Chamber, not with the Queen's Commissioners in the Throne area which—as we all know—is not part of the Chamber.
The report's recommendation would be most obviously inappropriate when a Royal Commission has to approve the choice of a Speaker by the other place. The idea that a Speaker of either House should have to seek approval from the Speaker of the other is inappropriate. I will therefore invite the House to agree that our new Speaker should not take part in these Royal Commissions.
The Select Committee is silent on timing, though it makes it clear that the House can go ahead, if it so wishes, without having to wait for primary legislation. Speaking for a moment as a Minister, I must say that the Government have made it clear from the start that we invite the House to set up a new Speakership with all convenient speed to enable my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to focus on his responsibilities as Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. But, speaking again as the Leader of the House, I strongly believe that a full-time and independent Speakership is right for the House, will be good for the House, and the sooner the House enjoys that benefit, the better.
3.42 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the House will share my sense of gratitude to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and his Select Committee. The noble and learned Lord, as a former Law Lord, is now, sadly, an endangered species in this House, but he is also one of our most respected Members, and we are grateful to him for introducing this debate.
We all know that this is an unnecessary dilemma. We have a system of self-regulation that works extremely well. It is responsible for the courteous proceedings that we have in this House, something that contributes hugely to the respect in which this House is held.
The fundamental finding is in paragraph 7:
"The overriding theme which has emerged consistently from all the evidence is that the House wants to continue with self-regulation … Thus it is clear that the House does not want a Commons-type Speaker. The responsibility for maintaining order must continue to rest with the House as a whole".
I wholly and unreservedly agree with that, and so do most Members of this House. Whatever we do over the next few weeks, we must not, even inadvertently, risk throwing that away. That is why the noble Baroness the Leader of the House and Lord President has shown real wisdom in providing for this debate, and I thank her for that.
There is no political issue here, no battle of party loyalties, none whatever. It was not even, I think, understood by the Prime Minister when he abruptly announced the abolition of the Lord Chancellorship, that his press release had these consequences for this House. Even if he was aware, we all know that who sat on the Woolsack was not remotely a driving force behind his decision. There is no political face at stake on this issue, all that matters are the best interests of this House. No doubt, some Members might want to change, but had last June's Statement not been made, the vast majority of us would have been content to let the present system continue.
The Select Committee report raises some important issues, which, along with others, will need careful thought by the Procedure Committee before change is made: the increased costs that are going to come about; increased staffing; accommodation; mode of election; terms of office; conduct of the State Opening; Prorogation; recall of Parliament and so on. The noble Baroness, Lady Amos, just raised the question of Royal Commissions. Even if we were to accept the argument, perhaps when she speaks later on she might say where a Speaker might sit when a Royal Commission is in this House. Will it be on the Government side of the House, or will it be on the Opposition side of the House?
On timing, or implementation, I have yet to hear a convincing argument for haste. It is easy to change a well tried system, but well-nigh impossible to recreate it. We still have a Lord Chancellor, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, has magnanimously and repeatedly said that he is happy to sit on the Woolsack so long as he holds his office, if that is the House's wish. The House is always delighted to see him. To make life a little easier for the noble and
386
learned Lord, I suggest an immediate reference to the Procedure Committee asking it to consider if some of the duties of a Lord Chancellor—such as presiding from the Woolsack in Divisions, and robing to do so—could be dispensed with. That would make the pressure on him as our Speaker, frankly, minimal— certainly not enough to justify immediate changes.
My view on this is clear. We can consider change, and do so in the appropriate forums, but I see no reason for implementing the change until the office of Lord Chancellor is abolished. We still do not know whether Parliament will agree to that. We have not even seen the Bill. We are now told that it may be delayed until March or April. We surely should not pre-empt the decision of Parliament. How ironic it would be if this House were to give up an ancient title that lends honour and dignity to the House and embodies its precedence over another place only to find that the office was not abolished at all. That would not be very clever.
The Select Committee said in terms in paragraph 5:
"The assumption we have made is that the office of Lord Chancellor will indeed be abolished. If that assumption proves to be incorrect, then the House will have to think again".
We should not put ourselves in that position. If we make a change now, it will not be so easy to think again. Change should surely come into effect only as and when the office is abolished. Until then, we should continue as we are.
I will address the vexed question of powers, or discipline, in the House. The Select Committee report lacked analysis of the burden placed on the Lord Chancellor. If I were critical, which I do not want to be, I would say that at times it read more as if' it was trying to find work for the new Lord Speaker to do. Some of this is, with respect, a little thin. Some may ask if the job justifies the levels of salary, pension, and office support proposed. I ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, why he did not simply consider extending the role of the Lord Chairman of Committees to sitting on the Woolsack, rather than creating a brand new post. This option is not floated and is dismissed pretty abruptly in paragraph 34 of the report.
Setting aside ceremonial, most functions or powers proposed for the Lord Speaker are removed from the Leader of the House and the Government Whips who sit on the Front Bench. These include decisions on PNQs, interventions at Question Time, and—something I will return to in a moment—occasional guidance when Members stray from the terms of the Companion. On PNQs, I, as Leader of the Opposition, and the noble Baroness, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, both said in our evidence that we saw no unfairness in the present system for deciding PNQs. That is not to say that we always agree with the decisions of the Leader of the House, but I do not think that they are taken in a partisan way.
Incidentally, I should say to the noble and learned Lord that the report attaches no significance whatever to the evidence of myself and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. I make no complaint about that. No doubt

387
the noble and learned Lord had good reasons for ignoring that evidence, but perhaps he might share those reasons at the end of the debate.
The same applies to the role of the Leader at Question Time where, far from complaining, I am full of admiration for the way that role has been carried out during my time in the House, not least by the late Lord Williams of Mostyn who said, among other things in his evidence to the committee, how much he enjoyed performing the role. I fear that too little thought has been given to the fact that if we take these functions from the Leader to build up the role of the Speaker then we are changing irreversibly the role of the Leader of the House.
For my part, I value hugely the role of the Leader of the House. It is a subtle role, one that is a servant of the whole House with a duty to hear and respect its wishes. The great Leaders of the House—I include Gareth Williams among them—have relished and understood the role. But when the Leader is stripped of those whole-House roles, as advocated in the report, we are left with what inevitably will become an increasingly partisan post. Why then should the Leader attend every Question Time? We shall have no Lord Chancellor and no Leader. Who would ever tell the Cabinet what your Lordships are thinking? So we should be cautious about changing the role of our Leader as an accidental by-product of the quest for a job prospectus for an unnecessary Speaker.
I make no complaint either about the role of the government Whips, who offer occasional reminders to the House. It is not a job called on constantly, but when it is, it is generally done appropriately and well. I know that some in the House would argue that there are shortcomings in this role, but if that is so, the whole House should help the Whips because they are voicing the sense and settled will of the House. Aside from anything else, what are the Whips for when they sit on the Front Bench in the House? I am far more wary than is the report about the long-term dangers to self-regulation of transferring these functions to the Chair.
It is said that the role of the Chair in suggesting turns at Question Time should be confined to calling the party. But what is to happen when two members of the same party rise together? That would be a backward move from what we have now, when the Leader suggests that an individual should speak. I do not think that the new proposal can be achieved, nor do I think it would help. Some may ask what is the logic of confining the role to Question Time and not extending it to Committee stages or even Statements, when time is so often short.
The question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, is equally relevant, and what about the grouping of amendments? The Government want to wash their hands of some of the things that they do, but not of others. We need to look at the totality of what is being proposed.
Already it has been suggested that the Speaker may give what is referred to in paragraph 26 as "gentle guidance" to Peers during proceedings. I worry about
388
this. Although the noble and learned Lord. Lord Lloyd of Berwick, says that I should not worry, is not this an invitation to the growth of the industry of points of order that is such a scourge and scar on the face of procedure in another place? If you have gentle guidance from the Chair, then equally you must have a system for Members to ask the Chair for guidance and, therefore, you have points of order.
While these things may not happen, I believe that they could, as does the noble Lord, Lord Roper, in his powerful evidence to the Select Committee, with so much of which I agreed. We may be right; we may be wrong, but one thing I do know: if things are left as they are, there is not the slightest risk that what we all fear may happen does happen, and authority drains from the whole House to the Chair. What is more, even if we were to appoint a Lord Speaker, there is no reason why the removal of the powers of the Leader and the Whips should happen at the same time. I suggest, therefore, a two-stage process: leave things as they are for a period to see how they work and, if it becomes necessary to alter in any way the role of our Leader, then we should look at that in two or three Sessions from now.
Finally—and briefly, because I sense that I have already spoken for too long—I shall say a word about the title. I am wholly unattracted to the title of "Presiding Officer" for this House, although it is not without its relevance that those bodies which have adopted the title have done so to avoid any possible confusion with the title of "Speaker" in another place. The title of "Lord Chairman- is suggested, but it lacks resonance and cannot stand if the Chairman of Committees continues, whom we all regard as being the Lord Chairman.
The title "Lord Speaker" is the conclusion of the report. Both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, said that "Speaker" is an ancient name. It is, and it is referred to in the Companion. but in practice no one uses it. It is alien to our procedures and gives the idea that the Speaker has a role in discipline. Surely that can only lead to the most damaging confusion with the office of Mr Speaker in another place and raise issues of precedence which need not be provoked. I have too much respect for the office of Speaker in another place to favour choosing this title, even if it did not conjure up images of a relationship between Chair and Chamber which no one wishes to see. I hope, therefore, that we shall not pursue that recommendation.
What is actually so wrong with the name of Lord Chancellor? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, said that once it has gone, it has gone, but look at the many titles which continue, not least the titles of Lord President, Lord Privy Seal or Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. They are retained, even if they have lost the powers originally attached to them.
As I said earlier, no change need take place until the Government persuade Parliament to suppress the office of Lord Chancellor as it now exists, but even if they do, this ancient name does not belong to No. 10. I note a suggestion made in paragraph 58 that the title

389
might then be taken on by the senior judge in a Supreme Court. Surely, however, if it is used anywhere, the title should continue to rest here in this House to which it has lent lustre for seven and a half centuries. If changes are pressed then I intend to propose that Lord Speaker should be replaced with Lord Chancellor. In this, as in all other aspects of the changes proposed in this report, let us try to go with the grain of our traditions, the dignity and authority of this House as far as we are permitted to do.
I believe that there is no great need for haste, rather there is much need for further thought, building on the work of the Select Committee. And there is a great need for care lest, in an inadvertent moment, we set in train a process of change that few of us want but which, if it starts, none of us will be able to reverse. We shall need a period of quiet reflection after this debate and it would be good if we can come together and agree.
I hope that, before proposing any move, the Leader of the House, the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, will use the usual channels to seek broad cross-party consent. If we are to have a Speaker, how much better that the role be born out of consensus than be a child of division in this Chamber. I look forward very much to the rest of the debate.
3.58 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for allowing time for this debate, which is of great significance and importance. Obviously Members on these Benches are now considering with great care the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick.
I was about to pay the noble and learned Lord a gracious compliment on the clarity and crispness of his report when I found my hackles rising steadily as he made what I thought was a rather uncalled-for comment on the issue of the Liberal Democrats being divided on this matter. Given that the distinguished chairman of the Association of Conservative Peers is to move an amendment which suggests that we should not proceed with the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, I thought that that "crack" was rather unjustified.
Indeed, I take one further step: it is the clear understanding on these Benches that this is not a party matter, but one for the House of Lords. As such, each Member of the House is entitled to express his or her own deeply felt conviction and should not be subject to reproof in any form for not standing in the same position as the leader of their party or, even more dangerous, that of their chief whip. So I repudiate the remark and, with that large qualification, I move on to congratulate the noble and learned Lord.
There is no doubt that the abolition of the Lord Chancellor has wide constitutional implications. I must agree with the Leader of the Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and say that this matter was taken in an extremely offhand way. It would have been much better if there had been full discussion of
390
the implications of the abolition of the post of Lord Chancellor. One of the most significant aspects of that post is still to be considered by the House—namely, the role of the Lord Chancellor vis-à-vis the judiciary—and I hope that time will be found over the next month or two, before any Bill is brought forward, for a full discussion of the issue.
The independence of the judiciary is the foundation stone of any free society. It is of infinite value. We in this House who have been so long associated with the Law Lords sitting among us have a special responsibility to make certain that any constitutional change with such implications fully guarantees the independence of the judiciary, and that the judiciary is satisfied that its independence is so protected. In this regard, we plead for a full debate.
It is well known that the Liberal Democrats favour the idea of a ministry of justice. Indeed we do. We believe that there should be a minister of justice—perhaps conventionally seated in this Chamber—but we fully recognise that issues of such complexity and importance for the future of this country must be fully debated in both Houses. That is what I am pleading for. I plead not for a particular outcome at the moment but for a discussion of every aspect of this extremely important question.
I turn now to the strong desire for the maintenance of self-government, an issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the Leader of the House referred. That is the overwhelming wish of the House. But we must be aware—and in this I commend the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde of how easy it would be to shift very slowly, gradually, little by little over the next few years to a situation where self-government was regarded as anachronistic, out-of-date, no longer suitable, and we would find ourselves with the same kind of structure as the Commons.
The very wise report of the group chaired, in a distinguished manner, by the noble Baroness, Lady6
Hilton of Eggardon, stated:
"The House should be proud of its capacity to combine good politics with good manners".
Yes, that is one of the attributes of which Members of the House are most proud, but perhaps I may refer your Lordships to the common-sense consideration that when responsibility for good behaviour is passed on to someone else, individuals no longer feel bound in the same way by their obligations to maintain good behaviour. One of the reasons for the Commons deteriorating into a kind of adversarial cockfight which goes on day after day, reaching its culmination in Prime Minister's Questions, is that every Member of Parliament can say to himself or herself, "Order is not my responsibility; it belongs to someone else"—namely, the Speaker. We should be extremely careful about building any set of precedents to remove the self-government of the House. If you give people responsibility they live up to it; if you take it away from them they no longer consider themselves bound by that responsibility.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde—the fact that we both agree will, I hope, give the House some pause; it does not mean that we are right but it

391
represents a quite wide spectrum of opinion—that it is a pity that the committee did not pay more attention to the issue of combining the chairmanship of committees with the new role of the presiding figure in the House—I use the term without any inclination towards a particular title.
On the face of it, the danger is that we are creating a big job out of a small job, with all the implications of that and of a highly paid and prestigious figure trying to increase his or her power as quickly as possible. One of the reasons for this is that our distinguished Chairman of Committees—a man who has gained considerable respect and trust in the House—is so overloaded that he may not be inclined to take on the additional responsibility.
That is the whole point of having Deputy Chairmen. The suggestion that there should be someone who combines the most senior aspects of the chairmanship of committees with that of presiding over the House, and who passes many of the details of both administration and the significant role of the European Scrutiny Committee to suitable and reasonably salaried deputies, should not be dismissed by the House without further consideration. We should not rule it out at this stage, although we may need to return to the issue when the present Chairman of Committees reaches the end of his period of office. It is so obviously the right and simplest answer—the most economic answer—to the problem. We would be wrong to dismiss it without careful consideration.
Having said that, let me turn to the immediate recommendations of the committee—albeit both the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and I would hope that they would form the basis of, at most, an interim stage. There are four issues involved—the title, the function, the salary and the role in relationship to another place. I shall deal with each issue rapidly because I do not wish to exceed my time.
As to title, I plead with the House to consider very carefully the implications of the title "Lord Speaker" as well as that of Lord Chancellor. The title "Lord Speaker" would be extremely misleading. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is right to say that it would raise major issues of precedence. It would be widely misunderstood outside this country because people would imagine that the Lord Speaker necessarily was a more senior figure than the Speaker of the House of Commons. It would be resented in the Commons. Above all, it would pave the way towards our presiding officer seeing himself or herself as the equivalent of the Speaker in another place—and that is the last thing that most of us would wish to see. It would be a nullification of the whole concept of self-government.
The question of retaining the title of Lord Chancellor is slightly different. I am in favour of the title of Lord Chancellor being retained, but for the judicial function rather than for the presiding function because in that role it is significantly and historically more important. That is why my noble friend Lord Roper and I have advocated the title "Lord Chairman of the House", a title that would fall if the amalgamation of the two offices of Chairman of
392
Committees and presiding officer of the House were combined as we would wish. In that case the title of "Lord Chairman" would be infinitely and properly appropriate. But the House should think very carefully before adopting the title "Lord Speaker", which has a great deal to be said against it.
I mildly reprove the committee for not spending a little more time on the issue of functions. I do not share the view that responsibility for PNQs should rest with the Leader; I believe it is an appropriate function to pass to the new chairman of the House. The Leader of the House and, in particular, her predecessor, Lord Williams of Mostyn, took that view and we should listen to it. The Leader of the House is right that the ceremonial role at Prorogation and the opening of Parliament should be retained by the Leader of the House. It is properly a ministerial function. I do not feel strongly about the issue of clashes at Question Time. I am slightly inclined to believe that it should be a function for the presiding officer, but I would not push that very hard.
However, I would push very hard the functions which should be properly devoted to the new post. One of those has been referred to already by the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition—that is, the role of representing the House abroad, which is important, significant and useful. Secondly, the entertainment of foreign dignitaries, including opposite numbers, is again a useful and important function. The ceremonial rooms off the Lord Chancellor's residence lend themselves remarkably well to that.
Let me mention, very briefly because of the lack of time, two other functions. First, the new office will have a crucial educational function. Most of our public do not know very much about the role of the House of Lords; they do not understand its importance. We cannot blame the media alone, although it does not help. It is widely misunderstood by the public that we are something other than a late version of Gilbert and Sullivan outside the theatre. It is important that we get across the significance of the work of the House. That should be one of the main functions of the new presiding officer.
To that I would link—and I declare an interest in this respect—the great importance of a proper induction system for new Peers. Our present system is deeply faulty. In a past existence I was in charge of induction for new Congressmen in the United States. We spent no less than two weeks inducting men and women whose term of office would be two years. That was perhaps excessive, but, frankly, an hour and a half is ludicrous. We need a better induction system which enables new Peers to learn their way about and not stumble over historic barriers they do not even understand until everyone around them starts shouting, "Order".
I will conclude with two negatives. The first is that, with great respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, it would be wholly inappropriate for the new Presiding Officer—the new Lord Chairman—to be the Chairman of the Procedure Committee which, in some

393
sense, rules upon his or her handling of the House. That would not be right. He or she might be a Member; they certainly should not be the Chairman.
The other negative I feel strongly about is that I believe that unless the offices are combined, it would be extremely hard to justify the level of salary proposed in the report. I simply do not understand it. I believe that both Chambers—particularly the other one, perhaps—are becoming increasingly casual about public expenditure and about the use of taxpayers' money to give very large salaries to people whose work does not justify those very large salaries. Unless the offices are combined, I and my party would not feel able to support a level of salary four times that of the average wage of our fellow citizens.
In conclusion, I think there are great dangers and some good prospects. I hope and trust that the House will consider very carefully the fact that two of the Opposition parties agree that the solution proposed here should not be the permanent and lasting one, and that there are some very considerable difficulties about the passion and mission of this House to retain the concept of self-government.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and his committee. They have very quickly carried out a useful study. I see their work as essentially contingency planning—that is, given certain assumptions, what should then be done, what should happen? I regret that they decided to propose just one solution rather than offering your Lordships two or more options for consideration, as a means of assisting the House to reach the best result.
As the committee makes clear, the assumption of its report is that the office of Lord Chancellor will go. Today's debate, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, said, is not the moment to address that issue, except to say that I am far from persuaded that the reforms of the judicial role and functions of this House and the upheaval involved following a difficult and contentious passage through Parliament will produce a better or more cost-effective outcome. Indeed, they would deprive this House of a most important responsibility, weakening that which is left.
Self-regulation is well served by Lord Chancellors who are heavily loaded, and so have little time to be pro-active Speakers. This minimalist approach suits this House's working arrangements well. But the committee rightly sees that a minimalist role alone is unlikely to attract any noble Lord. So members of the committee have had to scratch their heads and cast around for other functions within and beyond this Chamber which, in sum, might add up to a worthy and full-time job.
Part of the committee's solution is to remove from the Leader of the House some of her responsibilities. She would remain, of course, leader of her party, but if she lost much of her responsibility for leading and guiding noble Peers on all sides of the House, her standing as Leader would be undermined; certainly
394
weakened. She would become just another party leader. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, also made that point.
As the Aberdare Group described it in 1987, the procedural role of the Leader was,
"compatible with and not injurious to self-regulation".
Is not the obverse as true? Self-regulation is sustained by, as well as being compatible with, the procedural role of the Leader.
If the Select Committee's solution were to be adopted, there could be tension between the noble Lord on the Woolsack and the noble Lord who is leader of the Government party in this House. That might be avoided only if the role of Leader were abolished. I do not favour that. One day, a Prime Minister might even decide that his party's leader, with no other responsibility in this House, need not be in the Cabinet.
Here we have yet another step, following the removal of the judicial roles and functions of your Lordships' House, to sideline an all-appointed Chamber.
The House has for many years worked with and admired past Leaders drawn from different parties who, like the present noble Baroness, discharged their procedural responsibilities with a sure, light and evenhanded touch. A number of your Lordships have stressed the importance of having members of the Cabinet in this House, and I agree. The subtle combination of that status with the Leader's procedural and party responsibilities helps to limit inter-party sniping and encourages the mature behaviour to be expected of a House in which the vast majority of Members are senior in years and all in experience. So I have reservations about the Committee's solution to load the Lord on the Woolsack with the procedural duties of the Leader.
Since their initial announcement in June last year, the Government have variously referred to "the abolition of- or "the reform of" the office of Lord Chancellor. Reform is the word used in the opening sentence of the Select Committee's report, and so should also be considered.
The Committee granted me the privilege of giving oral evidence to it. I suggested that it should consider, as one of its contingency solutions, that it was not the Lord Chancellor who was leaving the House. Instead, the executive and Cabinet responsibilities of the present and past incumbents were to be transferred to a new Secretary of State, not necessarily a Member of your Lordships' House. The Lord Chancellor's judicial functions and responsibilities would be undertaken elsewhere.
The House would be left with a Lord Chancellor, who would still be Speaker, and hold all the visitorial, ecclesiastical and non-governmental responsibilities of his predecessor. He could also take on the ambassadorial, entertaining and other activities outlined by the Select Committee. In short, this would be a reform of the office of Lord Chancellor, not the

395
abolition of the post of Lord Chancellor. The next incumbent after legislation would be elected by the House, not appointed by the Prime Minister.
I note that there are others on all sides of the House who, in evidence and from what has been said today, favour the retention of the name Lord Chancellor, with its centuries of association with this House. The Select Committee, if it let but a smidgen of "affection press upon its judgment", might also endorse the retention of so noble a name as Lord Chancellor. Would retaining the title be confusing? Surely judges and other lawyers most affected by the removal of the Lord Chancellor's responsibilities for overseeing them are sufficiently bright to recognise that his role had changed. If the Government abolished their executive interest in the post of Lord Chancellor, they could have no claim that the title were still in the gift of Government. This solution might also assist in avoiding what may otherwise become a sensitive issue between this House and another place.
I have one further reservation on the committee's report. It comments that, once elected, the Speaker should give up party politics for life. I hope that the committee is not blind to the possibility that an eminent Cross-Bencher might one day wish to stand for election—not me, I hasten to add. Would all the Deputy Speakers who might be granted the powers of the Speaker in the proposal also be expected to forswear political party membership for the rest of their life?
Life Peers who have completed their time as Speaker do not pass on to a new House, as happens in the other place. They remain life Members of this House. Why should retired Speakers not be allowed to return to their own party in this House? We have not objected to this for former Lord Chairmen of Committees. Of course, I do not mean to imply that retired Speakers from any party would not be most welcome on these Benches if they wished to be independent of party and Whip.
Finally, there is the question of timing. I do not favour any change to the present speakership arrangements until legislation affecting the post of Lord Chancellor has been enacted. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde; to make changes in anticipation of a certain outcome is surely unwise, and may lack the stability of a new permanent arrangement when the reform of your Lordships' House has not yet been completed. For example, would it be reasonable to preclude from standing for election as Speaker an hereditary Peer whose period of tenure in this House is unknown?
The welcome undertaking of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to continue in his speakership role pro tern provides stability. I hope that he would not feel let down if we continue to expect him to fulfil that undertaking. I shall, of course, listen with interest to the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for not proceeding as the Select Committee proposes. However, is today's take note debate the appropriate time to vote on his approach? What will need to be considered closely is a specific proposal
396
ahead of legislation should this Government still wish to put one to your Lordships. I hope that, having made clear his view, the noble Lord will not feel that he should press his amendment today.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I rise to move the amendment standing in my name to the Motion moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. I had the honour to be a member of his Select Committee which considered this matter. However, I am afraid that, as the deliberations of the committee proceeded, I came to the view that the conclusions were mistaken for a number of reasons.
In his opening remarks, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said that the dissident view—if I can describe it thus—emerged late in the deliberations of the committee. It is true that I changed my view as the deliberations proceeded. I adopted what many noble Lords may consider to be a novel approach to these matters: I listened to the evidence. My noble friend Lord Freeman and I sought to persuade the committee, but without success. As your Lordships will see from the report, we moved amendments to the draft report, which the committee did not agree. We would have preferred to have submitted a separate, minority report, but we were firmly advised that that would not be in order, so we were not able to do so. Throughout the deliberations, all members of the committee appeared, or so they said, to wish to adhere to the principle of self regulation. That principle has been the bedrock on which House of Lords procedures have been based, as far as I know, for centuries. However, despite the declared devotion of my committee colleagues to that principle, the recommendations of this report are a departure from it. If these proposals are adopted, the Rubicon will have been crossed and it will be quite impossible to wind back the clock thereafter.
It is said that Question Time has become somewhat unruly and needs to be better regulated. I agree that sometimes two or more noble Lords rise, and the Leader has to intervene. However, that process works quite well. I strongly believe that, if we had a Speaker, several Peers would always rise, requiring a judgment to be made every time. The present process works.
I draw on my own experience in this matter. Some years ago, I was answering a Question from the Government Front Bench when Lord Whitelaw was the Leader of your Lordships' House. I was making a greater hash of it than usual, and was hoping against hope that he would quickly rise and move on to the next Question. Indeed, I whispered in his ear, "Can we move on?" He turned to me and said, "No, certainly not. You're making such a hash of it". He, like all other noble Lords who have led your Lordships' House with such distinction, was quite clear that he was not there to defend Ministers when the going got tough.
Of course, questions of procedure often arise at other times. However, the committee makes no suggestion that the new Speaker should intervene

397
other than during Questions. That said, I agree that there is some scope for the House to offer more obvious support to the Whip or Minister on the Government Front Bench when questions of procedure or similar matters arise. However, that does not need to he confined to the Front Benches. Other senior Peers might also be persuaded to intervene more often in support of the Leader or Deputy Leader.
The duties proposed to be assigned to the new Speaker arc very modest. Indeed, they are so modest that, in my opinion, the position is almost absurd. It is proposed only that the new person should be invited to identify the political party whose turn it is to ask the next supplementary Question at Question Time. He will not be asked to identify individual Peers or to decide when it is time to move on to the next Question or to end Question Time altogether. He will sit on the Woolsack in an official capacity only for Question Time. That does not seem to me to be much of a job.
However, I am certain that, as night follows day, new duties will be sought and assigned as soon as he or she begins work. Indeed, only today, while the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, was speaking earlier, a new duty was proposed. The noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, who is not in her place, rose and suggested that the list of speakers should be decided by the Speaker. It will not be long before he will identify individual Peers at Question Time, call amendments and even maintain discipline. In other words, we shall soon end up with a Speaker in the fullest sense of the word.
I have omitted one small duty that the committee proposed should be assigned to the new Speaker. He or she will be asked to decide whether Private Notice Questions should be allowed. Our previous Leader, the late Lord Williams, indicated some personal difficulty in that regard. Indeed, there was some conflict of evidence at this point. Under the present arrangements, some Leaders consult through the usual channels and others do not. I am in favour of consultation through the usual channels on such matters, hut, in any event, the number of Private Notice Questions that have been tabled in recent times is very few and the number allowed can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Nor has there been any dissatisfaction with the present practice as far as I can ascertain. After all, in the end it is a matter for the House, and a Leader's decision can always be challenged on the Floor of the House if the Peer concerned is particularly aggrieved—although I do not believe that it ever has been. It certainly has not in my recollection.
The committee spent some time considering what extra duties could be assigned to make the job worthwhile. All that could he identified was the possibility of representing your Lordship's House at overseas conferences and perhaps receiving other dignitaries who may visit us from time to time. I understand that those duties are at present generally discharged by the Lord Chairman of Committees when the Lord Chancellor is not available. On one
398
occasion last year, when I had overseas visitors coming to the House, the then Leader was good enough to receive them, for which I was most grateful.
The committee recommends that the new Speaker—whatever we decide to call him—should be paid approximately £97,000 a year. I calculate that, if the House sits for a 150 days per year, that represents less than 100 hours' work on the Woolsack during Question Time, which is the raison d'etre for his appointment. In other words, we are proposing to pay the best part of £1,000 per hour. Little wonder that several of your Lordships have indicated their interest in this appointment.
I turn to the name of the new post. If your Lordships decide to proceed as is now proposed—and I very much hope that you will not—I believe that we should retain the title of Lord Chancellor, whatever may be the future for that great office. We are told that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, wishes to give up his duties as far as your Lordships' House is concerned, but the Bill that will allow that to happen has not yet been introduced, let alone passed. Indeed, we learn that the noble and learned Lord now expects that the Bill will not appear until much later this year when there may be insufficient time for it to pass before the end of the Session. In that case, it may have to be introduced again in the next Session, so there must be some doubt whether it will pass during the present Parliament. Whatever the noble and learned Lord may wish, it is simply not yet practicable for him to abandon his duties. To be fair, he has said that he will continue to discharge them for so long as the House wishes. I hope that will be for a very long time indeed.
I believe that the proposals contained in the report of the Select Committee chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, lack merit. There is a risk that the modest duties proposed will simply not suffice and that, if we proceed in that 'way, either additional duties will have to be assigned, or else the job will wither on the vine. Neither of those prospects is desirable. I hope therefore that we shall disagree these recommendations. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert ", but decides not to proceed as the Select Committee proposes".—(Lord Trefgarne.)
4.30 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it was a great privilege and pleasure to serve on the Select Committee, which was chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. He has already explained very clearly some of the main recommendations that the committee made.
We were asked to recommend what arrangements should be in force if the House decides to proceed with having a Speaker. This debate is, therefore, largely about the modalities of the process. In what I hope is the not too distant future, the House will have a chance to take a decision on the principle of whether we should have our own Speaker. That is why I find the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, so curious. First, it is unusual to try to amend a take note

399
Motion at all; at least, it is the first time in my experience that that has been done. Secondly, his line of argument seems much better suited to the later debate and the vote on the principle. However, that is a matter for the noble Lord.
There is one important point, however, which is about more than modality and should inform our debate. Quite properly, the Select Committee did not attempt to make a recommendation, but we have had a good deal of evidence on the point, and I believe that we should refer to it. Understandably, the debate about the Speakership has become entangled with the separate issue of the future of the office of Lord Chancellor. If it was not entangled before, it has certainly been deliberately entangled by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in his speech.
However, the Speakership of this House has no connection whatever with the other judicial, departmental and ceremonial functions of the Lord Chancellor. The 10 functions were listed by my late and much missed friend Lord Williams of Mostyn in the debate on the Motion to set up a Joint Committee, and were set out in much more detail in the consultation paper on reforming the office of Lord Chancellor. None has any connection with the Speakership of the House.
That was confirmed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on 14 July, in the debate on the Statement on constitutional reform, when I asked him whether,
"any of the proposed reforms described by my noble and learned friend in his Statement have any link to or effect on his role as Speaker of the House of Lords".
In answer, he said:
"My Lords, none of them has any impact on that at all. It is a matter for this House to determine how the Lord Chancellor discharges that particular function".—[Official Report,14/7/03: col. 641.]
He was referring to the Speakership of the House. That statement was further confirmed when the noble and learned Lord gave evidence to the Select Committee. Those remarks are confirmation of the central point that, if the House wishes to proceed to have its own Speaker, it can do so entirely independently of later decisions regarding the office of Lord Chancellor.
Let us suppose that the Government had not produced their proposals in June—proposals that, I admit, caused a certain degree of excitement. This House could perfectly well have decided that it did not want the Prime Minister to choose the Speaker of the sovereign Chamber of Parliament. It would note that the Lord Chancellor was able to give only 10 per cent of his time to the Speakership, that he was exceptionally busy as a departmental Minister, that he was the head of the judiciary and that, because of the pressures on his time, he could not represent the House at Speakers' conferences and other important functions.
For all those reasons, the House could and can decide to have its own Speaker. It would not need a statute; it only requires amendments to our standing
400
orders and the agreement of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, which is forthcoming. On the first page of the report, he said:
"I should say—and I think this has been made clear by me as well—I hope that the Lords would feel able to make different arrangements to allow me to cease to be Speaker, but that is a matter for the Lords, not a matter for me … I make it clear my own personal view is that, subject to proper alternative arrangements being made, it would facilitate other things that I do if I cease to be Speaker but, as I say, that is a matter for the Lords".
All the evidence that the Select Committee received was against having a Commons-type Speaker and in favour of self-regulation. I am well aware of the fears that if we have our own Speaker it will be the thin end of the wedge, and that the powers will inevitably grow. However, the powers of the Speaker will grow only if the House agrees and decides to amend our standing orders. The Speaker will not be able to rule on order unless the House wishes it. There is no such thing as a point of order in this House, precisely because there is no one to give a ruling. Only the House itself can change that, not the Speaker.
It is also true that the Select Committee has not recommended a single new function of the Speaker, merely the transfer of existing functions performed already by the Leader of the House and the Government Whips. That is hardly a root and branch constitutional upheaval. During my time in the House, on the opposition Front Bench and in government, I have always thought that it was rather odd, to say the least, that when the House is performing its proper function of holding the executive to account, with Starred Questions and PNQs and the like, a member of the executive decides whether to allow a PNQ and which group in the House should speak next on a Starred Question. It would be far from me to suggest that, during Starred Questions, the Chief Whip would ever whisper to the Leader, "Keep number three going because number four looks a bit tricky".
I refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, about the salary and the time spent on the Woolsack. The noble Lord was a member of the committee and he knows very well that we believed that the Speaker should do two stints a day, which is three hours on the Woolsack a day and not the half hour that he suggested. As for interventions from the Woolsack or the Chair in Committee, those of us who serve as Deputy Speakers intervene now, if noble Lords speak to the wrong amendment or get in a muddle over Commons amendments, which is a very easy thing to do.
We have referred already to the difficulties faced by the Lord Chancellor in attending Speakers' conferences and the like, and generally in giving more time for the House. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, the Chairman of Committees, is not here today but in Canada, at the Commonwealth Speakers' conference. Every other Chamber in the Commonwealth will be represented by their Speakers in all their finery. This House will be represented by the Lord Chairman and, although I am sure that he will do it very well, other Speakers find that very odd. Having our own Speaker would enable us to have a Speaker for the House as well as of the House. Those who speak to schools and

401
universities and at seminars and the like on the procedures and role of the House know how important that role is.
The title of the new office is also to be decided, as we have heard. The title "Lord Speaker" has the advantage that it already exists in our standing orders. On the other hand, there is the understandable wish to retain the title of Lord Chancellor, although the existing functions will be transferred elsewhere when the Bill goes through. The title of Lord Chancellor is clearly not available until the statutory process regarding the Lord Chancellor is complete. However, it is worth considering whether it might be possible to transfer the title of Lord Chancellor to the Speaker of the Lords when that statutory process is complete. We have heard already that there are precedents for the titles of Lord President of the Council and Lord Privy Seal.
I have made it clear that it is perfectly possible, if the House so decides, to proceed with the choice of our own Speaker. As the Select Committee report suggests, there is a role for a Speaker. It is a limited role as a part of self-regulation, and not a threat to it. The role is to guard the procedures of the House and the rights of hack-benchers against the depredations of the Government and the usual channels, and I speak with all the authority of a former predator. The role is also to play a further role as the Speaker for the House which the Lord Chancellor is not able now to perform.
I hope that when the House comes to make its decision, it will decide that we should have our own Speaker, to he chosen by us and to perform the role and functions set out in the report of the Select Committee.
4.40 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I welcome the Select Committee report and, by and large, support its recommendations. It underlines and clarifies the need for a Speakership in your Lordships' House. It also elucidates the role that a Speaker would have. It sets out what I regard as a comprehensive list of duties to be undertaken. I disagree with those who have said this afternoon that it is a very thin role. I think it is quite a substantial role and believe it would give substance and stature to the post.
I do not propose to discuss in detail the various functions set out in the report, although I shall refer to one or two. As we have heard, there will be an opportunity to discuss the report in detail at a later date.
As I said in my written evidence to the committee, the role of the Speaker in relation to national and international parliamentary functions needs to be considered, and that has been done. Although a Speaker who is less powerful than the Speaker of the House of Commons is envisaged, the Speaker will nevertheless have to command sufficient status and respect at home in order to have authority to speak at international gatherings of world or Commonwealth speakers. Therefore, questions of administrative responsibility and salary will arise, as will the question
402
of the selection method. The committee has considered those matters in some detail and given responsibility to the proposed Speakership.
The question of salary has to be examined in relation to salary structures within the House and not in isolation. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, was giving us a caricature in his suggestion of what the Speaker should be. I do not attach importance to what he said about the duties of the Speaker. For reasons of national and international status alone, it is important for us to have our own Speaker in this House. I disagree with those who have said that the role could be combined with that of Chairman of Committees. The Chairman of Committees already has a great number of responsibilities and I think that it would he impossible to combine the two.
I also support the term "Lord Speaker". "Speaker" is a dignified and well-recognised title in national and international assemblies, which makes it appropriate for us to have our own Speaker. By prefacing "Speaker" with the term "Lord", we distinguish the role from that of Speaker of the House of Commons and we identify it immediately with this House. So I support that term. If ever we cease to be a House of Lords but become some other kind of second chamber, then we would have to adjust the title accordingly.
It has been made clear this afternoon that some Members of the House resist change. They do so on the grounds that they are jealous to safeguard the reputation of the House as a self-regulated Chamber. Although I respect that view and I support self-regulation, we have to face up to reality. A complete separation of the executive and the legislature from the judiciary—which, incidentally, I support—means that the present office of Lord Chancellor as we know it will go. The report before us today strikes the right balance in providing an alternative.
As I also mentioned in my submission, there have been great changes in the House. In the early days of this Administration, a great number of new Members were appointed close together in an attempt to redress the imbalance of the House and were not easily absorbed. Although Members now have initial training—and I agree with those who have said that we need to intensify that training—there appears to be less emphasis on the principles, on the Addison Rules and other interpretations of self-regulation in the House. While I agree that the Whips perform a very valuable function in this House, it is difficult for them to determine the point at which they should intervene and draw attention to the Companion. A Speaker would be in a much better position than the Whips to deal with that point.
I agree with my noble friend the Leader of the House on timing. It is important that we move on this issue and that, as other speakers such as my noble friend Lord Carter have made clear, it is within the remit of the House itself to determine if and when it has its own Speaker.
It is also very clear that none of us want a complete Commons-type Speaker. We need a lighter touch to preserve and enhance the courtesies of the House and

403
to enable the whole House to continue to be responsible for its own conduct. In that respect, we would continue to address the House and not the Speaker. We would be referring to the ultimate responsibly of the Chamber itself to manage its own affairs.
I think that my late, noble, learned and much esteemed friend Lord Williams of Mostyn put it eloquently and succinctly when, in his oral evidence to the Committee, he said:
"I would see that the new Speaker or Deputy Speakers would have fundamentally two responsibilities. One, to be the guardian of the ethos of this place and, two, to be the guardian … of the Companion".
If the Speaker could succeed in doing that, it would do nothing more than enhance the reputation of the House and preserve self-regulation.
4.49 p.m.
Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords, I hope that I may be allowed to congratulate the noble Baroness on her contribution this afternoon. She has brought not a breath of fresh air but a great gale of reality into a discussion of which, I am afraid, some leading Members of this House have made rather heavy weather.
However, this is a take note Motion. It is not as though, at the end of the debate, if my noble friend Lord Trefgarne is not successful in his amendment, we shall suddenly hand over £90,000 to the nearest person on our left, or whatever. That kind of detail can be discussed at a much later stage. However, the debate is important as it is our first opportunity to hear the view of the House as a whole on this question. I am very sorry indeed that there is no right reverend Prelate present to represent the view of the Bishops. Surely the Speaker of this House is a matter on which they should have a view. Where can they be?
Noble Lords: In church.
Lord St John of Fawsley: I doubt it, my Lords. The Bishops should be represented. We fought very hard to maintain that link and this is the sort of occasion on which their presence would be most valued.
I thought that my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition was extremely gloomy. He is normally a rather cheerful creature, but gloom descended on him. He prophesied that terrible things would happen. Then, to my horror, he was joined by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. If anything, she was even more sunk in gloom. She was alarmed that we might be intimidated by this Fox-North coalition which was taking place before our eyes. I was not intimidated by it; I was made intensely suspicious by it. This is a matter on which everyone has a right to speak. However, it must be absolutely clear that however much personal authority the Leader of the Opposition has, on this issue he has no more and no less authority than anyone else. The contribution of the smallest he is as crucial as the contribution of the greatest he—or she. I now understand that "he" must be taken to
404
include "she", but why not say that "she" should be taken to include "he"? However, I must not lead your Lordships down fascinating paths of interpretation.
The great thing is to have no Whips in this process. I have nothing against Whips. My own Whip is very agreeable. A lot of them can be agreeable. They can even be affectionate when they want something. However, they have no place in these discussions. They must keep right away from them and let the House decide. They can speak in their personal capacity. That is perfectly right. That is what the admirable report states.
I have been rather saddened by the amount of criticism that has been directed against the quite admirable report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. He has had a most distinguished career and made a most distinguished contribution to constitutional law. I remember that he pleaded so eloquently in the Court of Appeal before Lord Denning that he saved the Tameside grammar schools virtually single handed. I also remember that he had the great distinction of being the only person ever to have presided over the Court of Ecclesiastical Causes Reserved. It had never met until he called it together on a very important occasion to save the Henry Moore altar in the church of St Stephen's, Wallbrook. It was allowed to remain there. I should very much like to congratulate the noble and learned Lord on this latest contribution. However, it is a contribution. It is not the final word.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I acted in accordance with the advice of the noble Lord who was then chairman of the Fine Arts Commission.
Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend may consider that if the new dignitary were on the Woolsack, he would at about this point ask my noble friend to return to the Motion on the Order Paper.
Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords, as a Member who has totally absorbed the ethos of this House, I would take not the slightest notice.
However, in all courtesy, I must return to the Motion to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, for his gracious reference to myself and to disarm any suspicion that this was some kind of arranged exchange of courtesies between us.
The Speaker of the House of Commons is a very great person indeed and a very powerful person. However, our Speaker would not be that. All the fears that have been expressed that he would suddenly turn into a monster ignore entirely the fact that the ethos of the House exists to restrain him from doing so. No one would put up with such a creature for very long. He would be removed, if necessary by an Act of attainder. It is absurd to consider these proposals in abstracto as though there were no House of Lords operating, no tradition and no ethos, as it is that which will control the Speaker, not the other way round.
The proposals make some very useful points, for example, that there should be no retiring age. I welcome that and give it three cheers. It is proposed

405
that there should be no party politics, for ever. What is the matter with that? Noble Lords in this House have never liked party politics. If a Speaker is deprived of it, I do not think that he is deprived of very much. One could not give up party politics for Lent because one has to give up something that one would miss. Therefore, I cannot share the indignation that is felt on that matter. I think that it is very sensible.
The report also contains a concealed joke. Anxiety is expressed that the Speaker would be so far away from the Clerks at the Table that he would be unable to communicate with them. Therefore, it is suggested that some sort of telephonic or telegrammic communication "of an unobtrusive kind"—those are the words of the report—be set up so that the Clerks can communicate with the Speaker. That is a wonderful idea. It would take a Heath Robinson to do it justice. Perhaps the Speaker might be relieved to put some clear water between himself and the Table for once.
The report stresses that the ceremonial role of the Speaker should continue. I absolutely applaud that. It is a great privilege to hold an office of this kind in this House. We like ceremonial. We are a people of strong but suppressed imagination. Therefore, we care about the show and about what goes on. The report is very tactful. It suggests a gown but not a wig. It does not mention a wig. As I look around the Chamber I see some noble Lords who could do with a wig more than others. Should the chairman of the committee achieve part of his arcane ambition and become Speaker of this House, to give him a wig would be like selling coals to Berwick. However, that is just his natural advantage.
Let the Speaker's role expand. not in this House, but outside. One of the interesting suggestions was that wives should be invited to Speaker's functions. I should hope so. I had not realised until now that they were not invited. When I was a master of Emmanuel at Cambridge—I can comment because the Provost of King's has changed—I invited the Provost of King's, Professor Bateman, and his wife to lunch. I spoke to Mrs Bateman, who said: "Oh, I am very sorry, the Provost is unable to come. He has a lecture". So I said: "Well, what about you? Can you come?". She was dumbfounded. She told me that in 20 years she had never been asked to attend a function that her husband was unable to attend. That is advanced Cambridge for you. Why should we not set a better example here? And the former Speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, set an excellent example by continuing prayer meetings with wives. Lady Douglas-Home used to call them the "holy hens". They were assembled by Speaker Weatherill. If prayer stimulates an appetite it should be easy to add dinner to that.
Finally—I have spoken for too long, but I was distracted—regarding the title, please may we have no "Lord Chancellor"? It is appalling to have abolished that great office of state with no sufficient consideration of the consequences, its historical value or the knock-on effects. Insult would be added to injury by erecting a pre-fabricated House and hiding the castle lurking behind. If it goes, I would regret it;
406
but let it go, allow something else in its place and let this House over time make that position as honoured as the Lord Chancellorship has been in the past.
Again I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, on an excellent report. It is a constitutional document of the first importance. It has all the merits that a constitutional document should have—it is clear, concise, apt, relevant, literate and short. It will rank as one of the major documents in our discussions. But we must not let today's debate become totally out of proportion. We are simply having a discussion and there will he many more. Please God, we will all take part, until, like the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, we are called to a higher reward, of which she informed us last time I heard her speak in the House. But we have to improve and build on the report and we are much indebted to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and his colleagues for their hard work and contribution.
5.4 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I welcome the report. It is in keeping with the spirit of the Statement made by the then Leader of the House, Lord Williams, on 16 June last year. The House had been taken by surprise a few days earlier about the Government's changes affecting the future of the Lord Chancellor. Whether or not the wider changes were welcome—clearly they were not to everyone—the majority of Members responded to the suggestion of Lord Williams that informal soundings should be taken about the Speakership before any firm proposals were put forward. He was trying to discover the potential measure of consensus and, as a result, it was promptly agreed on 3 July that the Select Committee be set up.
I have repeated that familiar history of events to distinguish between two issues: the Government's major constitutional changes which were bound to be controversial between parties; and the lesser issue of the Speakership, if I dare so describe it, which should be judged on merit across all parties on a non-party basis. The report of the Select Committee has not won unanimous applause. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, makes that clear. Noble Lords will make some critical comments, including some from myself. But I hope that it will remain a House matter with no covert pressure from the Whips.
The report says that the committee cannot predict the outcome of the proposed legislation on the constitutional change; and if the office of Lord Chancellor is not abolished, then the House will have to think again. But for the time being, given the decision of the House on 3 July, I intend to speak about the report itself, not the broad context. Like others, my mind has been moving since the June Statement and whatever I say now, I will be open to persuasion.
On balance I prefer the title "Lord Speaker", as proposed by the committee. But I listened carefully to my noble friend and would not be desperately bothered if "Lord Chairman" were preferred. Paying

407
him or her a salary equal to that of a Cabinet Minister sounds sensible, but the precise figure is not critical and it could be smaller. There is also the proposal that the Lord Speaker should have 16 deputies rather than the present panel of 28. I have never counted them all before and I am sorry if that is shocking.
So I shall listen carefully to the views expressed today and the exchanges from which we all benefit— the day-to-day conversations in the Lobbies and corridors. But I welcome without reservation that the committee has endorsed the over-riding principle of self-regulation and I assume that the House will take that view with few dissenters. However, given that principle, I am surprised that the committee proposes that Question Time be transferred to the Lord Speaker. That would be a major change from self-regulation. Until the June announcement I cannot recall any substantial discussion, Unstarred Question or balloted Motion about moving Question Time away from the Leader of the House. At Question Time the House has good days and bad days. The Chamber can be cheerful, flat or irritable. A Member who has missed a chance to ask a supplementary may feel disappointed or irritated—even have a sense of grievance—but that is minor. The House enjoys Question Time and it is part of the pleasure and success of the place. For better or for worse, the Chamber of the House of Commons is very different with a very different style.
So, I am puzzled by the arguments set out in paragraphs 20 to 25, particularly paragraph 22, of the report. I am surprised that paragraph 22, the case for change, is put ahead of paragraph 23, the case for leaving Question Time alone. The report puts it plainly:
"The existing system works well".
That must be the overwhelming argument and must be put first.
With respect, the arguments for transferring the functions from the Leader of the House to the Speaker are trivial. It is said that it is sometimes difficult for the Leader to see Members behind when two or more Members persist in standing for a few seconds and that, in addition, when the House is fractious, it may be invidious for the Leader to make a choice. But those are minor points—an irritation for the Leader—compared with the erosion of self-regulation.
In my 12 years in the House, I have seen few serious problems of that kind. I fully understand that the Leader of the House may prefer to be relieved of that burden, especially when dealing with other demanding and controversial business. But the Leader of the House is the servant of the House and that is what matters most.
Again, paragraph 22(c) is trivial. An inexperienced Government Whip may cause difficulties but there are few examples of that. In any case, so what? It is in the nature of Parliament for there to be rough corners from time to time with a little pain and muddle.
408
But paragraph 22(d) is even more curious. It states:
"If we are to get a person of stature to serve as Speaker, and if he is to earn the respect of the House, he must be seen to perform at least some functions in the Chamber".
Therefore, we are to compromise self-regulation in order to give the Speaker something to do. That seems to be putting it an odd way round.
The House is in favour of a fair share of supplementaries between parties. But the House sometimes wants to hear a supplementary question out of turn from a particular Member and the House quickly shows its preference. Under the report, the Speaker would lose the discretion that is now available to the Leader of the House. To change the existing convention would diminish the quality of Question Time and strengthen the role of the parties against the individual Member.
In weighing the arguments for and against transferring discretion to the Speaker at Question Time, the report concludes:
"We do not share the view that so limited a change would prove to be the thin end of the wedge".
It adds that the committee was much influenced by the evidence of Lord Williams of Mostyn. The House greatly respected his wisdom and weight and the shadow of his sudden death fell across the committee. But his evidence needs to be considered in a cool and detached way. Lord Williams of Mostyn was very often right, but not always. I am sure that the House will reflect seriously and with care on Question Time. We could cause ourselves a great deal of trouble.
5.13 p.m.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, it is a pleasure to note that the noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley, has not lost his touch. I believe we all enjoyed his speech. Unhappily, however, he pre-empted the first point that I was intending to make; that is, that this is a "take note" debate. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, does not press his amendment.
As the House has already heard, the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, gave evidence to the Select Committee, and it is gratifying to us both that many of the suggestions that we made were incorporated into its report. Unfortunately, we shall not have the pleasure of hearing the noble Baroness's views on this matter today because she has an engagement later this evening and, in the best traditions of your Lordships' House, she has not put down her name to speak in the debate.
The committee wisely drew on the experience of the other place, where we have had a Speaker since 1377. I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, that I was unaware that the nominal office of Speaker in your Lordships' House was even more ancient. Of course, not all Speakers of the House of Commons were as impartial and independent as they are today. The great Arthur Onslow—perhaps the greatest of all—was Speaker for 33 years from 1728 to 1761, and it was he who established the tradition of the independence of the Chair. After his first 10 years, he

409
took a stipend as Secretary to the Navy and was in hock to the government of the clay, but we owe to him the independence of the Chair.
Therefore, I support the main thrust of the Select Committee's report and I want to confine myself to a few observations and suggestions. First, with regard to the name of the office holder, I should like to believe that we could continue with the term "Lord Chancellor". However, that is a judicial appointment and I agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said about that. I do not believe that it is biddable and therefore I have no real objection to the name "Lord Speaker".
I was always under the impression that the former Lord Chancellor was paid as Lord Chancellor and also as Speaker of your Lordships' House. Certainly, on our overseas visits—the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, will confirm this—the Lord Chancellor was regularly referred to as the "Speaker" of the House of Lords. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, said, our Companion is festooned with references to the "Lord Speaker". I believe that that is a natural choice for the presiding officer of our House. I know that M r Speaker Martin is worried about it but I sought to allay his fears by pointing out the reference in our Companion to the term "Lord Speaker". However, I wish to make the point yet again—Ihave made it previously—that, whatever happens, on all public occasions the Speaker of the elected House of Commons must always take precedence over the Speaker of your Lordships' House, whatever he may be called.
In response to what the Leader of the House said, I turn to the question of the commission. As the House will know, up to the present time, the Speaker elect of the House of Commons has come to the Bar of your Lordships' House and sought the approbation of Her Majesty to his or her appointment as Speaker of the Commons. I do not believe that that can possibly continue because it may indicate that your Lordships' House is more important than the House of Commons. I see no reason why the approbation of the Crown should not be sought through the Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household—an office which I held for some years in the other place—who regularly takes messages personally to Her Majesty. No doubt the Speaker of your Lordships' House, whatever he is called, will have to seek the approbation of the Crown as well, and I believe that that could equally well be done through the Lord Great Chamberlain.
Next, I turn to the question of the Speaker's deputies. As your Lordships know, the Select Committee recommends three salaried deputies and 16 unsalaried deputies. I agree about the salaried deputies; I simply wonder what the unsalaried deputies will do. In my time as Speaker of the other place, I always took the Chair from 2.30 to 4.30 p.m., 6.30 to 7.30 p.m. and 9.30 to 10.30 p.m., and sometimes beyond that. The hours in between were covered by my admirable deputies—the late and much missed Lord Walker of Doncaster, the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd.
410
All of them had small bedrooms on the Ways and Means Corridor which they could occupy if they needed to if debates went on late into the night. I do not see why the Deputy Speakers in your Lordships' House should not be provided with sleeping accommodation if the House sits late, although we all agree that we hope that it will not sit late and certainly not as late as the Commons used to sit.
I am glad to know that the Lord Speaker will continue to have the benefit of the Lord Chancellor's residence and that he will continue to be as generous with his hospitality as the former Lord Chancellor has always been to Members of your Lordships' House. I am also glad to know that he will use the residence to receive distinguished visitors and that he will represent your Lordships' House on overseas visits. The noble Lord mentioned "love and whisky" although probably in your Lordships' House it will be "love and champagne".
The Lord Speaker will also need an experienced secretary. I could not possibly have carried out my job without the support of Sir Peter Kitcatt and I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd. would agree that she was heavily supported by Sir Nicholas Bevan.
The Speaker of your Lordships' House should have some responsibilities passed to him in relation to the granting of PNQs. The noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, mentioned the Speakers' List. To me the order in which our names appear on the list is a mystery. I believe that it has worked reasonably well and I see no reason why it should not remain as it is at the moment. Logically, as in the other place. it may well be the responsibility of the new Speaker.
In your Lordships' House we are all in favour of self-regulation. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, mentioned the procedures in the other House, but we do not have red lines on our carpet. The ethos of the other place is the sublimation of civil war in which the weapons are words and not knives or guns. That is not the tradition of your Lordships' House. Self-regulation must be maintained. I do not know whether many of your Lordships share my view that in recent times it has been creaking somewhat. I do not believe that it should be the role of the occupant of the Woolsack to draw attention to those who break the conventions, but that it should be the duty of the party whips to jump upon those who break the conventions. I know from my experience when I was one of Lady Hylton-Foster's flock how heavily she jumped on me one day when I committed a mild mistake. It was not for nothing that she was affectionately known as our headmistress, although not to her face.
There is also the issue of dress. The object of wearing a uniform is that it draws attention to the office and not to the individual. For that reason I hope that the occupant of the Woolsack, whether he is called the Lord Chancellor or the Speaker or Lord Speaker. will continue to wear robes and I would like to think that he would also continue to wear a wig. I say to the noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley, I am never recognised these days because I have never had any hair and I

411
wore a wig. However, the other day I got off the number 11 bus and the bus conductor would not take my money. When I whispered out of the corner of my mouth, "How do you know me?", he said that it was West Croydon Bus Station and not that I had been Speaker of the other place. I hope that self-regulation in your Lordships' House will be resurrected and that it will continue to be our practice.
Finally, the Speaker of your Lordships' House will be, as is traditional in the other place, one of us, but a rather special "one of us", if your Lordships know what I mean. The Speaker should always be treated with great respect and should deserve the affection of the House as is the case in the other place. I am sure that it will be the case in your Lordships' House.
5.25 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in paying tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and his Select Committee for their report on the Speakership of the House of Lords. I welcome the general thrust of the report and I agree with most of the recommendations.
I speak as someone who has been able, over the past eight years, to observe self-regulation from different perspectives. I became a Member of your Lordships' House in 1996, seated on the Labour Opposition Benches; I was a Government Whip from 1997 to 2001; and I am now a Deputy Speaker.
I have to say that before the 1997 election self-regulation in its present form seemed to me to give the appearance of, by and large, working. When, for example, a Government Whip intervened, drawing attention to a recommendation in the Companion, the point was usually accepted without demur. Increasingly, since then this is not the case. Now, one can speculate whether the difference is because for some 18 years before 1997 the Whips were from a party with an enormous permanent majority in the House (and accustomed to that power) and the main Opposition Benches were scrupulously observant of the conventions of the House in expectation of being in government but in a minority in the House of Lords, or whether it is simply because the composition, nature and workload of the House has changed radically. Whatever the reason, the fact is that a Government Whip intervening to draw attention to a point in the Companion is not given the same automatic acceptance or even, on occasion, much heeded.
With a heavy legislative load and the composition of the current House, there is really no objective reason why such a system involving Government Whips ought to work. They are junior Ministers and at least since 1997 have been very heavily involved in ministerial duties on Bills, Starred and Unstarred Questions, Statements etc. It is, therefore, in my opinion, inappropriate for the Whips, when on Front Bench duty, to be expected to metamorphose into objective and neutral arbiters of the proceedings of the House. However well they do so, it does not appear to
412
be right and in my experience the House increasingly ignores their advice, especially if it is in a fractious mood. It may well be that in a more leisurely House in different times there was a golden age of self-regulation—although I doubt it—but in my opinion and experience, it is not a mechanism which works now.
I think it makes sense to give the Peer on the Woolsack I shall return to the question of the title—the responsibilities currently resting with the Government Whip on Front Bench duty of reminding the House of the recommendations of the Companion. This would have the advantage of the advice coming from a neutral and hopefully respected Member whom the House should choose to preside over its business. I agree with the Select Committee in its concept of this office being the guardian of the Companion.
I turn now to the question of the title. I have to say, with the greatest of respect to the Select Committee, that I do not like Lord Speaker. I know they say it is used in the Companion, but in fact where it is used in the Companion it is used to refer to whatever Lord is on the Woolsack at a point when something is happening. It does not refer to a particular office or one particular individual and personally, I find the title Lord Speaker quaintly archaic with shades of Gilbert & Sullivan or even Tolkien. This is not a very important aspect of any change but I, personally, would prefer a more functional description such as in the Scottish Parliament—a Presiding Officer. I do not share the antipathy of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to that title. But that is not surprising, given our different attitudes to the Scottish Parliament. Even Presiding Peer would be more accurate since on any current plans for the role of this new office the usual powers normally given to a Speaker anywhere else in the world will not be accorded to the person presiding in this House.
Since the presiding officer will have the responsibility of overseeing procedure then it is logical for the Clerks to change their present position, which allows a constant communication with the Government Front Bench—
Earl Russell: My Lords, without wishing to express any opinion on the title of Lord Speaker, I put on the record that during the English Civil War it was used for a long period of time and created no controversy.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the English Civil War is not the happiest of places to go back to for your Lordships' House. At the moment the Clerks' position allows constant communication with the Government Front Bench, which is logical, given the way we work now. But, it would be more logical for the Clerks to change their position so that they are much closer to the presiding officer, in the same position as, for example, in the Commons. I have to say that even in present circumstances I find the distance between the Woolsack and the Clerks and the consequent difficulty in having instant communication, a great inconvenience.

413
I must also say, with respect to the committee, that I am not taken with its proposal for electronic communication between Clerks and the Peer on the Woolsack. It seems unnecessary when there could be direct discussion by the simple process of rearranging the seating. After all—and I know that this will perhaps arouse some feelings among some of your Lordships, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick—why keep the judges' Woolsack when there will very probably—and I would hope soon—be no judges sitting, as such, in this House?
It is only logical that to the presiding officer should go the prerogative of naming which Peer should speak next in any circumstance, such as Starred Questions, where currently the Leader of the House or his deputy does so. I am glad to see that the Select Committee recommended that. The presiding officer is seated so as to see clearly the whole House and who has been rising, as well, of course, as paying heed to any preferences being voiced by the House.
It is no reflection on the Government Front Bench to suggest moving its procedural powers to the presiding officer. In many ways it takes them out of an invidious position and in some cases should lead to a more vigorous intervention in favour of the Companion. In a heated atmosphere or during a point of high contention, it can be politic for the Government Front Bench not to intervene on procedure to avoid inflaming the situation, and the recommendations in the Companion are, therefore, sometimes ignored by default.
I think that to transfer the current procedural powers of the Government Front Bench to a presiding officer would improve the ordered functioning of the House and retain the best elements of self-regulation. I wholeheartedly echo the words of the Select Committee about the transfer of the Leader's powers when it states that it sees this not as an encroachment on self-regulation but as an inherent part of it.
I should just like to finish with one general point. In interventions from noble Lords today, as well as at various points in the Select Committee report, great emphasis is put on how suggested changes will not lead to further powers accruing to the presiding officer. I understand the requirement at this stage for such assurances, but surely we should be prepared to face the fact that this new office will evolve as and how the House decides it should. I suggest that it is not a suitable or sound approach to be afraid of some kinds of change just because they might lead to more.
5.34 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we have heard an interesting speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay. I would love to feel that I could agree with it, but I find it difficult to find one word with which to agree. The idea of having a presiding officer sends shivers up one's back; the idea of moving all the furniture around is equally disagreeable.
I find this to be a sad day; that we should be discussing how to go about finding a Speaker. The fact is that I do not want to see the office of Lord Chancellor go, and that is that.
414
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, admitted in a very generous way that when he was a young barrister he had aspirations for the office of Lord Chancellor. I do not think that I would be cheating if I told your Lordships that those aspirations went back earlier than that. The noble and learned Lord and I joined the Army the same day. We went to Caterham. While we were busily being told how to behave as soldiers, the aspirations came out of the khaki of the noble and learned Lord. So he had them even in those days when he was 18. He has had a great track record and a great period of success, which we have all admired, at the Bar and on the Bench.
I do not want to see the office of Lord Chancellor go because it has been in existence for 600 years. It carries great dignity, great authority and great respect. It works, and it works well. In my view the Government are making a mistake of monumental proportions in trying to obliterate the office of Lord Chancellor; and for what? We do not know.
As in so many things which the Government seek to change, it is not just the effect of removing that which is here which is destabilising, but it is the reverberations as a result of that change which rumble through. In this case, the whole of Parliament, the judiciary and the constitution are involved. Such changes throw up, sometimes years later, other changes and quasi-inevitable alterations that at the time had not been foreseen. In that respect I was slightly alarmed by the timescale which the Leader of the House adumbrated. It seemed one of considerable speed. I hope that caution and time to reflect will be allowed.
The Select Committee, under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, was set up to try and suggest what should he clone aprè's le deluge. It worked very hard and the House will be very grateful for its efforts. My noble friend Lord St John of Fawsley said he thought that it was an admirable report and could not see how my noble friend Lord Strathclyde or the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, could have given it even a modest rebuke. All I can tell him is that he has heard nothing yet. 11 am bound to tell your Lordships that I find the result of the report—to which a great deal of effort was given—unimpressive.
The committee was set up on 9 July 2003 with clear terms of reference,
"to consider the future arrangements for the Speakership el the House in the light of the Government's announcement that it is intended to reform the office of Lord Chancellor".
However, the Government issued a press release three days later and published a consultation paper, both of which referred to the abolition of the office of Lord Chancellor. Abolition is not the same as reform. But the committee decided, nevertheless, to make an assumption—and that is a curious thing to do—that the office of Lord Chancellor will be abolished. In other words, the committee decided, unilaterally, to change its own terms of reference. I find that remarkable.

415
I can see the difficulty in which the committee found itself, but the result is that it got itself on the wrong foot and then it went down the wrong track. It has now reported on a scenario that it was not given.
The whole report treats the abolition of the office as though it were a fait accompli. We do not know what the Government have in mind. They have not given any facts or ideas of their intentions, nor how they propose to deal with the consequences. It has not been discussed in Parliament. The one word "abolish" seems to invoke an irreversible stance of muted acceptability. But, I think that there is much water yet to flow under that bridge before that becomes a reality.
The report states a number of remarkable things. In paragraph 5 the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is quoted as saying that he hopes that the House will,
"make different arrangements to allow me to cease to be Speaker".
Heavens above, he has only just been appointed—last June—and now he wants out! One might ask—with the greatest of reverence, of course—if the noble and learned Lord does not want to be Speaker and wants to abolish the office of Lord Chancellor, why he took on the position in the first place. The noble and learned Lord is an agreeable fellow and has many friends around the House, but we are discussing the destruction of a huge edifice and an important part of the constitution, and the personal wishes of an incumbent should not be a motivating factor in that.
Let us assume, however, that all that happens and we get a new Speaker—whether he is called Lord Chancellor, Lord Speaker or whatever. What is the first thing that we do? Pay him £100,000 a year—plus expenses and pension, presumably, plus a full-time staff, plus accommodation in the former Lord Chancellor's office. Someone told me the other day that about five noble Lords had privately had their tongues hanging out—if I may put it in a slightly indecorous way—hoping to fill the job. That is not surprising. I should not be surprised if the number were not five but 35 in the end.
What is he going to do, this new character? I fear that we were none the wiser after the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, spoke. No one knows. Paragraph 22 states:
"If we are to get a person of stature to serve as Speaker, and if he is to earn the respect of the House, he must be seen to perform at least some functions in the Chamber".
Good heavens above! What are we to appoint a Speaker for if he has no functions in the Chamber? Can we really envisage that? Paragraph 22 hints that the committee was hunting around, trying vigorously to find something for him to do.
One idea was to transfer some of the functions at present carried out by the Leader, the Deputy Leader and the Whips. What on earth for? They do their jobs admirably at present. "Ah," the committee says, "it is very difficult for the Leader of the House, when more than one person is trying to ask a supplementary at Question Time, to see who is behind him". Frankly, I have never heard such nonsense. It is perfectly
416
possible, and always has been, for that system to work. It is not a justification for having a Speaker for the Leader to give up those responsibilities.
If we were to have a new Speaker, and a number of people rose to their feet, as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said, why should the Speaker not say, "It is Lord X's turn"? The committee states that the Speaker should say that it is the turn of the Liberal Democrats, the Cross-Benches or the Labour Party. But frequently several Peers are on their feet at the same time from the same party. The late Lord Williams of Mostyn often used to say, "I think that we should hear from Lord X now, Lord Y afterwards, and Lord Z after that". I found that perfectly acceptable. The important point is that Question Time is the prerogative not of political parties but of individual Members of the House. If the Leader were to give those responsibilities over to a new Speaker, and if there were, as there sometimes is, a monumental row, how is the Speaker—marooned, as he will be, and as is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—on the Woolsack to receive any advice from the Table?
Lord St John of Fawsley: By semaphore.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is worse than that. Not semaphore; that would be indelicate. Paragraph 22—I think it was—states that that should he done by installing some form of electronic gadgetry so that the Table can communicate with the Speaker: a sort of closed-circuit mobile telephone or laptop. That proposal is so bizarre and unedifying that I cannot believe that it could be considered other than in jest.
One job of the new office holder is to entertain people from abroad. Maybe that should be done— I am sure that it already is—but I wonder whether that is a justification for making the change.
Then the committee addressed the matter of dress. It should be dignified, paragraph 38 states. Quite so. It should include a gown. Quite so. As the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill said, what about a wig—and even breeches and buckled shoes, which always used to be the dress of Speakers and Lord Chancellors in the old days, until the present Government came in with their "cleansing" views? The committee was silent on that. I am not surprised.
I found paragraph 48 astonishing. Three members of the committee suggested that the Speaker should be a member of the Cabinet and appointed by the Government. Good heavens, the whole purpose—or so it was said—of this fearful upheaval was to stop the Government of the day, by appointing the Lord Chancellor, from also appointing the Speaker of the House of Lords. I always thought that that was anyway one of the most vapid arguments. Nevertheless, that was the reason given. That has never caused any problems in the past, and I cannot see that it will in future, but that was the Government's view.
Given that that was the cause of all the hoo-ha, it seems beyond belief that anyone, let alone three members of the committee, should say that the

417
Speaker should be appointed by the Government and should be a member of the Cabinet, thus politicising the post of Speaker to an intolerable degree. I am glad that the committee did not agree with that.
If such a Speaker is chosen, it must clearly be done by the House as a whole. The committee suggested in paragraph 49 using the alternative vote system, because it was used in the first by-election to chose a new hereditary Peer. That system required the votes to be counted 40 times. I find that incredible. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, shakes his head, but if he looks into the matter he will find that the votes were counted 40 times. Moreover, no one understands the system at all, other than one or two enormously enthusiastic Liberal Democrats. I do not. Ask anyone to explain how the alternative vote system works and you will get a very garbled version; they usually refer you to someone else.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, the noble Earl tempts me but I shall not give way to temptation.
Earl Ferrers: Well, my Lords, that is a surprise.
Self-regulation must be the right course to follow. It is peculiar to the House of Lords and it works well. We really must ensure that that continues. The danger of creating a Speaker is that we will be sowing the seeds for the destruction of self-regulation. The committee made that point clearly in paragraph 23 when it stated:
"If the Speaker is given any functions at all"—
any functions at all, mark that—
"Members will be quick to push their luck"—
a lovely descriptive phrase, and so true—
"instead of exercising self-restraint".
Self-restraint, is, as we all know, already in increasingly short supply at Question Time, when all too frequently it gives way to determined doggedness to stand their ground on the part of some noble Lords. That paragraph also states:
"If the Speaker is given any functions at all, they are likely to increase over time, thus diminishing self-regulation".
That is also true.
If we are to have a Speaker, we will inevitably have less self-regulation—especially as the years go by. A Speaker with no powers is pointless. A Speaker with powers will vitiate self-regulation. That is why I am glad that my noble friend Lord Trefgarne tabled his amendment.
The greatest service that the report has done is to open our eyes to the farcical situation into which we are running. There will be more expense, more bureaucracy, more uncertainty and more destruction, but no one knows what the Speaker will do or what he is for.
418
What is on the plus side? In my view, zero. I hope that we will try to cherish and respect that which we have, instead of floundering around, despising what is in existence in the hope of finding something better. We often do not achieve it.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I remind noble Lords that the House has taken a self-regulating decision to finish by 10 o'clock, and that the time that noble Lords take to speak could ca use the House a problem in meeting two different objectives.
5.49 p.m.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, I appreciate that announcement just before I rise to speak.
I have not made a speech in your Lordships. House for five years, for the good reason that as I occupied the non-partisan post of Presiding Officer in the Scottish Parliament, I thought it inappropriate to speak from a partisan Bench in this Parliament.
It may be helpful if I said a few words, as the most recent Speakership created by the House was that which I occupied. I have read the report with great interest and, I may say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, great approval. I should like to comment in the light of some of my experience of the new institution.
At the beginning of its report the committee refers to the 1971 report of a group on the working of the House, which talked about the sense of the House as the decisive factor in the conduct of our business and how well it works. The report quotes another working group chaired in 1999 by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, talking about the degree of courtesy in this House:
"This may be due partly to the role and composition of the House, which enable us to stand back a little from the rough-and-tumble of party politics; if these were to change, the style of the House might well change too".
My first point is that the House has already changed since that report was made, and more change is in the pipeline.
When I was a student in Edinburgh my professor of constitutional law dinned it into us—I remember his words precisely—that the House of Lords was the only institution created by man that was kept efficient by the persistent absenteeism of the majority of its Members. That was an accurate description of the House of Lords, but it is no longer and will not be in future. We must therefore be sensible in looking at what is likely to happen to the House. With great respect to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, his speech was based on the premise that he wanted none of the reforms to happen at all, but they are happening and will continue. The committee was asked to look at the consequences of the reforms if they go through. We are taking note of that report today.
The Scottish Parliament has a Standing Order that says that Members shall treat each other with courtesy, a Standing Order noticeably absent from the House of Commons. That accounts substantially for the difference between the tone of Question Time in the

419
other place, particularly Prime Minister's Question Time, and that of Question Time in this House, which is much more like the tone of Question Time in the Scottish Parliament.
The late Lord Williams of Mostyn, in his evidence, talked very persuasively about the Leader of the House not having to continue his job of intervening in a semi-Speaker role. The committee report does not make enough of the very important point that whoever is on the Woolsack has the best view of the House as a whole. When Members compete to speak—sometimes genuinely, but often because they have not seen that someone else is trying to intervene—only the occupant of the Woolsack can see that a Back-Bencher has been bobbing up and down trying to get in when a FrontBencher suddenly erupts. The geography of the House lends itself much more to intervention from one end rather than a Front Bench.
Incidentally, I take the same view regarding the role of the Clerk in deciding, when the clock has moved on, whether we should move to the next Question. He also has a limited view of the Chamber. Perhaps that function should also be carried out by the occupant of the Woolsack. If the occupant of the Woolsack is careful, he or she will reflect the will of the House, perhaps not even by speaking but simply by gesturing to indicate who most conveniently could speak next. That could save a lot of time. Much confusion is caused at present simply by noble Lords not having a clear view of who else is trying to speak.
On the proposed responsibilities I must register disagreement with my noble friend the leader of the Liberal Democrats—I am so glad that she said we could say what we liked. I speak from some experience. Paragraph 29 states:
"We propose no transfer of the role of the Leader in leading tributes, nor of her formal role in relation to the production of groupings and lists of speakers".
There is no Leader of the Scottish Parliament. The Presiding Officer chairs the weekly business bureau and is heavily involved, therefore, in decisions not just about the business of the Chamber but about which Bills go to which committees and so on. He partly takes on the role of Leader of the House. There is no equivalent of the Department of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod or the Serjeant at Arms. The Presiding Officer chairs the corporate body responsible for housekeeping matters. As a result, Members of the Scottish Parliament are aggrieved that they do not get the chance to ask questions of someone responsible for those matters, because the Presiding Officer cannot be targeted by Members on the one hand and then order their affairs on the other. Individual members of the bureau and the corporate body answered questions. The arrangement that the Chairman of Committees can answer housekeeping matters in this House, leaving the Lord Chancellor or his successor out of it, is a good one and should not be changed.
Paragraph 37 states:
"the Lord Chairman should continue to be the spokesman of the House Committee when presenting its Reports and answering questions on administrative matters".
420
I very much agree with that and disagree that the two offices should be combined.
I have mixed experience of the representative role. Paragraphs 40 and 41 are headed "Representing the House abroad". In my four years as Presiding Officer I attended some such conferences and never saw the Lord Chancellor once; nor would I expect to, as he had so much more important business. But it is unhealthy that the upper Chamber of the UK Parliament should not be represented at international events by its Speaker or whatever we decide to call him. More importantly, I am surprised that the paragraph says nothing about representing the House at home. I agree very much with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, not only in what she said on the matter today, but in her evidence to the committee about the role of the new Speaker in internal advocacy of the role of the reformed House of Lords. I spent much time explaining the new institution of the Scottish Parliament to conferences throughout Scotland. When the House of Lords continues to change, I suspect that there will be a similar demand for the House to be represented throughout this land as well as abroad.
I enter a word of caution on receiving overseas dignitaries: there is great danger that the occupant of the Woolsack will become an extension of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I was sometimes treated like that. People said, "You must go to Edinburgh and see this thing which has come to pass". On one occasion a head of state was inflicted on me personally by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, to my great regret, and on another occasion, my two deputies and I each had to host a lunch at the same time. We wondered which of us would get to the Chamber in time to start the proceedings. There is a danger that the new occupant of the role will be weighed down by becoming an extension of the public facilities available to the Foreign Office. It is none the less an important role that I do not diminish.
I agree with the process of secret ballot and the proposal for an alternative vote. I enter a slight reservation about the proposal that the period should be five years with the possibility of renewal. I should have thought that, given the style of Speaker that we want to have, it would be useful to have a convention in the House that the occupant should rotate among the parties, including the Cross Benches, rather than be a perpetual adornment.
It may surprise the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, that I am not enamoured of the title "Presiding Officer" and never have been. The Northern Ireland Assembly managed to ditch it by providing in a Standing Order that the Presiding Officer as defined in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 shall be addressed in the House as Mr Speaker. That was a neat way of getting round the issue. We might have done the same in Scotland but the trouble was that none of us could agree on what we should be called. We therefore stuck with what the two Chambers here decided.

421
I have a serious point to make on the title. I do not care much what title is used. whether it be Lord Chancellor or Lord Speaker. But I have an objection to the title "Lord Chancellor" going to the Supreme Court: the Lord Chancellor is a peculiarly English institution; he has never had a role in Scotland because of the Scottish legal system. Unless I have misunderstood it, the Supreme Court will be a United Kingdom court, therefore the chairman—
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, the Lord Chancellor is the Lord Chancellor of Great Britain, and he presides in the House of Lords over Scottish appeals in all respects except criminal appeals. The noble Lord is right in one respect only, and that is in respect of criminal appeals. He is the Lord Chancellor of Great Britain.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, what I am not clear on is whether the Supreme Court will be covering criminal cases as well. That is still in the air. In that case, I will pass on quickly from the question of title.
What we want on the Woolsack is not a regulator; but a facilitator of our self-regulation. If we look at it in that way, this report is one to be welcomed.
6 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, it is a great privilege and pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood. As a Welshman, I have often wondered what goes on in that other outpost of what used to be the United Kingdom. He has given us a great insight into that. I welcome, as other noble Lords have, the report from the committee under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, if only because, and not only because, of its capacity to be brief and concise. In that spirit, I will comment on only one aspect of the report: the title of the future occupant of the Woolsack.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, with whose speech I was in almost total agreement, I am not convinced by the arguments in the report against retaining the title of Lord Chancellor. There seems to be a singular lack of logic in one part of the report, in the suggestion that to revive the name of the Lord Chancellor might be pretentious, but that it would be a good title for the senior judge. I find it difficult to reconcile those two suggestions. If it would be a good title for the senior judge, it would also be a good title for whoever will preside over the deliberations of your Lordships' House. If we could persuade the House to retain that title, it would maintain a great deal of the dignity and prestige of this House, which has suffered sometimes from the ravages of modernisation.
As for the suggestion of "Lord Speaker", I find no strong arguments to support that. The title Speaker has a strong historical resonance for the House of Commons. It goes back to the 13th century, when the spokesman of the Commons was the man who spoke to the king when he returned to the House of Commons after making the King's Speech, putting forward his proposals for action by the House of Commons. The spokesman was the only person
422
allowed to speak in response. It was from that that the title "Speaker" came. No one is clear how the Speaker eventually came to be the presiding Member of the House of Commons.
It is clear however that the title Speaker, or Lord Speaker, has no historical resonance for your Lordships' House. The office of Lord Chancellor, as prolocutor of the House of Lords, has a history that goes back to the curia, or the great council, of the Norman kings. It had nothing to do with being a speaker or a spokesman, he was a senior and distinguished officer of state. and was the king's closest confidant. Therefore, the title of "Speaker" has no historical relevance whatsoever to the requirements of your Lordships' House.
Today, the term "Lord Chancellor" has a clear connotation in most people's minds outside this House, as the occupant of the Woolsack in your Lordships' House. Whatever the other duties of the Lord Chancellor are, no one, when you mention him outside this House, thinks of him as the Visitor of royal peculiars, or as the arbitrator of disputes among students in universities, which are both functions of the Lord Chancellor. No one thinks of him as these, they think of him as the occupant of the Woolsack in the House of Lords. This has already led to a certain amount of confusion, in that many people outside the House think that he is a Speaker, that he controls the proceedings of the House, when as we all know, the House is self-regulating, and the Lord Chancellor has no role in the order, discipline or proceedings of the House. I suspect that if noble Lords accept the suggestion that we should call the future occupant the "Lord Speaker", that confusion would be even worse, because people would be more likely than ever to believe him to be the House of Lords counterpart of the Speaker of the House of Commons.
The Government, of course, have a perfect right to organise their business how they please, and to distribute duties among their Ministers as they please, but the procedures of your Lordships' House are a matter for your Lordships, and not for anyone else. If the Government in their wisdom have decided on a course of action which no longer has a use for this ancient title, your Lordships may think, as I do, that the Lord who sits on the Woolsack should continue to be entitled, as he has been for more than seven centuries, the "Lord High Chancellor".
6.7 p.m.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, I will not praise the report, although I recognise the dedication and effort of those who gave time to prepare it. It seems to be a report of lost opportunities and some confused thinking. The issue is either that we leave matters entirely alone, as some noble Lords would have, or we recognise that a lot of change is needed, particularly as your Lordships' House changes, as the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, indicated. We must recognise that these changes have not finished, and we know that further changes are likely. The nature of those changes we can

423
only guess at. One thing that would be worst above all would be if we created a role of Speaker in form, but in reality that person would be a phantom Speaker.
The first point about a Speaker is that in essence he or she is a chairman. Good chairmanship is a skill; it is an art form that requires dedication, commitment, and above all preparation. It is pretty demanding, and it is jolly draining. It is not a reactive role, it is essentially a anticipatory role to ensure that the House comes to a decision and makes progress. It is not for the chair to decide the nature of the progress; that is for the House to decide.
Some of our debates are unnecessarily long, partly because some noble Lords are out of order, or they are repetitive, or they cannot stay within the suggested, self-imposed time limits. They have an inability to stick within the suggested time limits, and there have been a couple of examples this evening.
If the new Speaker is to have a greater role then the House must put some trust in that person. You cannot ask someone to take on this role and then declare that, "All the difficult decisions will be taken by the House". That is not the role for the Speaker. We must have some faith and confidence in the person chosen by the House.
Question Time has been referred to on a number of occasions during our debate. From the point of view of a Back Bencher, too often noble Lords on all sides of the House ask several questions when, according to the Companion, they should ask only one. Others ignore the Question altogether and exploit their time to their own advantage. Others, dare I mention this, possibly aim for news coverage. In my judgment, I am afraid that the same thing is happening when we consider Statements.
Additionally, it is not acceptable for the House to decide who should be called when two noble Lords from the same party rise to speak. It would then always be the more senior Peer, or the one who is the more regular attender. However, the presiding officer or Speaker would know that a certain noble Lord or noble Baroness had a specific interest in the particular Question and, of all people, they should be the one to be called. So I do not find the suggestion in the report that this should be left to the party or to the good sense of the House one that is acceptable.
Paragraph 31 suggests that the Speaker should do his stint when the House is in Committee. I disagree with that. Given that the role of Speaker is to be highly significant and that, with respect, unless we are going to change significantly the age profile of your Lordships' House, the person who is to preside is likely to be someone in the twilight of their career and their life, to demand that, over and above all the roles that the Speaker is going to be asked to take on, he should also sit at significant length on the Woolsack is not appropriate.
Finally, I turn to the name. In my view, the title of Speaker should rest with the Commons, where it has been formally recognised since 1377. We already have the title of Lord Chancellor. We know that the role of
424
the Lord Chancellor has changed over the centuries: the role played by Cardinal Wolsey as Lord Chancellor is hardly the same as that played by the more recent former incumbent, although allusions were made in the press to certain similarities between the two. Nevertheless, while I stand to be corrected by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, history tells me that in the Magna Carta the representative of the Barons was called the "Prolocutor". Having done a little research on the Speakership, I saw no reference to -My Lord Speaker" in Magna Carta or, indeed, any reference to it until fairly late on. So to suggest that the two have run coterminously is something yet to be proven.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. The word prolocutor is the Latin for Speaker. In those days, they spoke Latin.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, of course some of them spoke Latin; indeed, I had to pass 0-level Latin to go to Cambridge. However, while the word prolocutor may be the Latin for Speaker, the word used in the Commons was English—and that was rather earlier than it was used in your Lordships' House.
Be that as it may, the name of Lord Chancellor has, will and should evolve and, in my judgment, it should be the one to guide us in the future.
6.14 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, having had the honour of being asked to serve on the Select Committee, I should say that I took on the task with a completely open mind. Having heard all the evidence, I support the report's overall conclusions. I have been amazed this afternoon at what the noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley, described as the "deep gloom" which pervaded the Chamber at the beginning of this debate. I say that because I think that this is a very modest report suggesting minimal changes which I believe the House should welcome.
Nothing in the report suggests a scenario such as that outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. Rather, it emphasises time and again that the House operates extremely well under self-regulation, although it may be a little frayed at the edges; that it wants to see self-regulation continue and that that is the premise on which it is based. Of course the way in which the current change was announced to us was most unsatisfactory but, having arrived at this point, I believe that we should see the change as an opportunity, which is what the members of the Select Committee tried to do. My noble friend Lord Steel reminded us that change is inevitable. I think that the report seeks to make the absolute most of the opportunities now before us.
I feel a deep sense of frustration over our debates on the future of your Lordships' House. That frustration is born of the fact that while we have debated the composition, administration, facilities and even, on occasion, the form of Christmas card for this House,

425
we are continually led away from debate on the all-important issue of the function of the second Chamber; the reason for its existence. Parliament as a whole should have debated the functions of a second Chamber and have come to a conclusion before deciding either 'who should sit in this House or how we should organise ourselves.
I believe that the lack of a proper debate on this issue both in Westminster and in the country at large has left us in a position where constitutional debate carries on around us, but the thorny issue of how your Lordships' House should best serve the country's democracy as a check and balance on over-mighty government is not addressed. It is against this background that we should consider the future Speakership of this House.
If we are thinking about the future of democracy, then perhaps one of the most important points is set out in paragraph 49 which considers having a Speaker elected by the whole House using an intricate electoral system. While the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, may not believe that many noble Lords—perhaps with the exception of the Liberal Democrats—can understand its complexities, perhaps I can assure him that it is a system which ensures that as much consensus as possible is reached on whoever is elected. That is extremely important. Having a Speaker elected by the whole House would mark a step forward towards real democracy.
I turn now to a point referred to first by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, by my noble friends Lady Williams and Lord Steel, and by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. There is a job to be done in focusing on what the public want in terms of the future role to be played by this House. We need someone to be given a very clear remit to explain to members of the public the present role and function of the House of Lords so that they can play a part in considering what should be its future function.
While there is a certain level of understanding among members of the public of what is done here, there is also a good deal of misapprehension played up in the media by portraying a caricature of this House as a place where old Lords wrapped in red robes wobble from bar to bar on their Zimmer frames. Noble Lords know that that is not true and, equally, members of the public are not completely taken in by such images. However, they are not absolutely clear about our role in the legislature. Having a Lords Speaker who could give a face and voice to this House in a way achieved by many Commons Speakers over time would be an extremely valuable asset when set against the background of Lords reform.
A Lords Speaker could transform public understanding through a wide variety of opportunities such as youth parliaments, trades unions, the Citizenship Foundation, the National Federation of Women's Institutes, the City and Guilds Group, the CBI, regional assemblies and whoever is interested in learning about how our democracy works. If we made perhaps one mistake in our report, it was not to emphasise enough the importance of such a domestic ambassadorial role.
426
I believe that our debate should concern how we as a House shape ourselves for the 21st century to serve our democracy as well as we are able. To do that we must have self-regulation—we all agree on that—but we must not have self-congratulation. Those who do not want change are in danger of being self-congratulatory. We must look to the future and have regard to how we can best serve a modern democracy. We should support the step forward that the report suggests.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I do not welcome the debate because I do not support the Government's view that the office of Lord Chancellor should be abolished. However, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, a couple of hours ago, I would welcome a debate in the near future on the full implications of the abolition of the office of Lord Chancellor, with particular reference to the independence of the judiciary.
Having said that, however—to say more would not be appropriate for this debate—I share the view of the majority of the Select Committee that, in the light of the Government's determination to abolish the office of Lord Chancellor, the House should consider contingent proposals for the Speakership of the House.
Like most noble Lords, my whole life has not been spent in this House. Outside the House—in the course of my political life, business life and so on—I have attended, as will have most other noble Lords. numerous meetings. At those numerous meetings there is invariably a chairman and the role of the chairman is invariably a key one. My trade union colleagues, who are not in their places at the moment, will recall that a former General Secretary of the TUC, the late Lord Citrine, wrote the standard work entitled ABC of Chairmanship. Put shortly, the normal role of a chairman is to get through the agenda in a reasonable time but to enable individuals at the meeting to be heard and to put their points of view, as long as they do so with reasonable despatch and do not hog the meeting and tax the patience of the others present. As none of us is exclusively a Member of the House we should bear in mind the normal role of a chairman, and the role of our Speaker should be broadly similar to that.
I agree with the Select Committee that our Speaker—the "Lord Speaker" or whatever he may he called—should not have responsibility for selecting amendments, nor should he pick speakers in a debate. The present system, which is being applied to the debate today, of speakers lists prepared for major debates after liaison through the usual channels should continue. But the Lord Speaker, like the chairmen of most meetings outside with which we are familiar, should be entitled and expected to intervene if a Member speaks for too long in a time-limited debate, comments at undue length on a ministerial Statement, strays too far from the point or is unduly repetitious. It does not make sense in a House such as ours, with

427
all the business that we have to get through, to leave these matters to something as vague and diffuse as "the House as a whole".
What does "the House as a whole" mean? I suppose it means the House as advised by the Leader or by a government Whip. But, as the late Lord Williams of Mostyn—who has been quoted already today—said,
"a very junior whip is very reluctant to say something to someone who has been here 30/40 years".
In my experience, that does not happen and we muddle along.
I recall recently—and this is a very recent experience, not one going back over the years—a 16-minute speech in the course of a debate where speeches were supposed to be limited to eight minutes. There are other abuses, such as the so-called winding-up speech which has been wholly or 90 per cent pre-prepared and makes no attempt to comment on the many contributions made in the course of a lengthy debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, said in evidence to the Select Committee, there are other abuses—which individually may be trivial but they are abuses—such as supplementary questions that come in the form of statements and interventions that take overlong. The noble Baroness used the phrase—she is familiar with the House of Commons and many of your Lordships may not approve of it—in answer to question 57 of the Select Committee that the Chair should put Members in their place. Some noble Lords may consider that that is a shocking thing to say to Members of this House but, in the interests of the rest of us, I do not believe that it is.
It may be that the Chief Whips and other Whips should and do remonstrate on the quiet—and, because it is on the quiet, other noble Lords will not know whether or not it is happening—with Members who ignore the Companion. However, although no doubt that takes place—or should take place—it depends on the Whips' knowledge of what is happening and their willingness to pursue the matter. Never having been a Whip, I am somewhat sceptical of whether they do take on that kind of role.
I like the Select Committee's view that the Speaker should be seen as the guardian of the Companion—that phrase in paragraph 16 appeals to many noble Lords—but, I say to my noble friend Lord Carter, who was a member of the Select Committee, I am not so sure about the phrase "a light touch". If you contrast a light touch with a heavy hand, I do not want that either. If "a light touch" means ineffective chairmanship—and it might—I do not want it.
I wonder whether the Select Committee report—which reflects, of course, a majority decision and was not written by one person—is a little over-sensitive to the traditional practices of the House, particularly when paragraph 26 refers to "gentle guidance" and "tactful reminders". Are your Lordships so different from ordinary mortals outside?
Lord Trefgarne: Oh yes!
Lord Borrie: My Lords, the noble Lord says "Oh yes". I believe that sometimes firmer measures may be needed—even I am being very cautious; I put it no higher than that—especially for repeat offenders. The Lord Speaker should not be deprived of the powers needed to make his or her job effective, which would be in the interests of us all.
6.29 p.m.
Lord Freeman: My Lords, it was a great pleasure and a fascinating experience to serve on the Select Committee under the excellent chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. His tolerance and the clarity with which he expressed his agreement, and sometimes disagreement, with views expressed is much admired.
Speaking at this stage of a debate such as this one has to be very careful not to bore your Lordships and not to repeat many points made before. I shall not do that. I shall follow the example of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie.
I agree with my noble friends Lord Strathclyde, Lord Trefgarne and Lord Ferrers. They encapsulated with admirable clarity my concerns.
I started out on the Select Committee journey as a pragmatic modernist, admiring very much what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, argued in committee. However, by the time the Select Committee came to write its report I had turned into a cautious traditionalist. I need to explain briefly why that was the case.
I have slightly reordered my points; I learnt—although inadequately, perhaps—the art of debating, and not reading one's speech prepared many days beforehand, from the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, when he was Speaker of the House of Commons. That tradition we might bear in mind more often in your Lordships' House, simply because one can very often get to the kernel of an argument and dispute it quicker if one is actually debating in the Chamber rather than addressing the Chamber.
On self-regulation, the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, must be right in saying there is a choice for your Lordships. Either we need a strong Speaker—inevitably, the Speaker of your Lordships' House will assume greater powers as the decades pass—or we need to improve our self-regulation. Having been a Member of the other House for three Parliaments, I say to your Lordships that this House has an amazing and valuable tradition of self-regulation.
We take great risks with that tradition if we begin to give discretionary powers, however modest—on PNQs and choosing a supplementary questioner, for example—to the Peer on the Woolsack. I have come to the conclusion that it is not a risk worth taking, for two reasons. The first reason is that I think our Front-Bench spokesmen and Whips will begin to lose heart in imposing or seeking to encourage the imposition and maintenance of self-regulation. If the Front Benches

429
see the Peer presiding on the Woolsack beginning to make discretionary judgments, the trend will be clear over a number of years.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Steel, in a fascinating speech about his experience as Presiding Officer in the Scottish Parliament, foreshadowed a change in the membership of your Lordships' House. I implore your Lordships to think forward a number of years for the newcomers. Some may be elected and perhaps some more will be appointed on a strict party political basis of apportioning the membership of your Lordships' House according to the votes at the previous general election. The newcomers to your Lordships' House will not remember the days of pure self-regulation, however imperfect it was in some cases. They will assume that the Peer on the Woolsack will have greater and greater responsibilities to regulate this House.
On PNQs, I strongly believe that the Leader of the House should consult not the Whips but the leaders of the respective parties and the leader of the Cross-Bench Peers about the wisdom of accepting a PNQ.
A noble Lord: No.
Lord Freeman: My Lords, I may stand corrected, but I have done some research. I went back to 1992–94 under a previous leader, when three PNQs were asked in this House, but only one was replicated in the House of Commons. I do not know why the Questions were not replicated or asked or why the then Speaker may not have granted the PNQs. But I would much prefer a system whereby the Leader of the House expressed the will of the House in permitting a PNQ to the regulation in the House of Commons whereby the Speaker cannot give the reasons for turning down a PNQ.
On the title, I understand that the arguments are finely balanced. I strongly agree with the arguments, advanced in particular by my noble friend Lord Ferrers, that the title Lord Chancellor should be retained. I think there will be real confusion in the other place. Some affront might be caused by the selection of the title "Lord Speaker". I think Members of the House of Commons feel quite strongly about that, as I would have done if I was in that place.
I listened to two arguments opposing the choice of the title Lord Chancellor. The first was from my noble friend Lord St John of Fawsley, who argued for a decent burial of the title. Yet my noble friend was also Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, a title whose functions have changed radically over the years. I was not entirely persuaded by his argument. Neither was I impressed by the other argument that the title belongs somehow to the law. If necessary, we can ourselves redefine the association with the chancellors of our great universities. The title Lord Chancellor is both dignified and appropriate to the task.
Finally, not many of your Lordships referred to the process of election. The Select Committee, quite rightly, recommends the single secret ballot, using the alternative vote mechanism. I have to say to my noble
430
friend Lord Ferrers that if he cannot quite understand the process of election, I am very surprised he passed out of the Caterham depot. It is a perfectly straightforward system; it was successfully used in the election for the vacancy for the Conservative hereditary Peers, and it has the great advantage of taking the process out of the hands of the Whips and back into the House where it should belong.
6.35 p.m.
Lord Rees: My Lords, we have had an admirable debate based on an admirable and concise report by the Select Committee, which has clearly been subjected to some very telling and experienced evidence.
A noble Lord: My Lords, my noble friend is not the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees.
Lord Rees: My Lords, my noble friend points out that I am not the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees. That is an error on the speakers' list. I am not in any way attempting to prevent the noble Lord participating in this debate. However, that is enough of that for the moment.
It was notable that the Select Committee had evidence from two former Speakers. One, the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, has given us some fascinating insights into the pressures under which a Speaker labours and the skills he needs to deploy.
One of the most telling points that emerged from the evidence given to the Select Committee is that there is no overwhelming voice in this House for a Commons-type Speaker. Indeed, that has been the tenor of this debate so far today. There is no reason, at any rate under present circumstances, to assume that that sentiment is likely to change in the time that is likely to elapse before the role of the Lord Chancellor is reformed or abolished. That must be borne in mind, particularly by those outside who venture to criticise the conduct of the affairs of this House. Those who actually labour in the field have some more direct knowledge of what goes on and the kind of qualities we feel are needed in the conduct of our affairs.
At the moment, we are not clear what the Government have in mind as a successor to the role of the Lord Chancellor, nor what powers or functions the person holding that office would have. It is right to emphasise at the outset that the Government of the day cannot, by legislation, alter those functions. If the ancient and important position of Lord Chancellor is abolished, as is proposed, there would, in regard to the business of the House, be a vacuum to be filled, not by the Government of the day, nor by the other place, but by ourselves.
It is right, therefore, to consider what the functions of a Lord Chancellor are in this particular field. The late and much lamented Leader of the House, Lord Williams of Mostyn, started his evidence to the Select Committee, as I recall, by saying that his previous responsibilities were to be guardian of the Companion to the Standing Orders and guardian of the ethos of the House. Those words are well worth pondering.

431
Indeed, it is a matter of great regret that we are not able to draw him out on these questions and, in particular, to find out by what means he and the Lord Chancellors during his tenure of office as Leader of the House were able to maintain and safeguard the Companion or the ethos of the House. This is not an idle phrase, as some noble Lords were inclined to observe. I believe that, collectively, we are guardians of the Companion and the ethos. Although we may not appear to be sensitive to criticisms of this House—even though I am sure that we are—it is not for anyone, not even the Prime Minister or the Cabinet of the day, with, as now, a very large party majority, to dictate to us on these particular issues.
Even now, the Lord Chancellor is not responsible for maintaining order in the Chamber. He has no power to rule on Points of Order, make a list of speakers or order Questions. He may call noble Lords to put supplementaries, but even now, it is the Leader of the House who orders Private Notice Questions—although there may be a case for re-examination of that matter. The Lord Chancellor may recall the House when we are in adjournment. Beyond that, his role in this particular field is very limited. Perhaps that is masked to the world outside, because the Lord Chancellor undeniably has interesting, important and time-consuming duties to perform. If the Lord Chancellorship is abolished or deprived of the limited duties in this field, it must be open to doubt whether noble Lords of experience or ability could be attracted to fill the new office, however described—and in the time available I will not enter into the debate about what the office might be called.
Receiving visitors and paying visits to foreign legislatures, entertaining and being entertained, even lecturing the country on the scope of his role and the role of this House would hardly be an adequate basis for the creation of a completely new office. Indeed, there must be a risk that an energetic holder of such an office would be tempted to try to extend his functions until they nearly resembled those of the Speaker of the House of Commons. An energetic and conscientious holder of such an office might well be tempted to enlarge his functions to justify the rather considerable salary that the Select Committee has recommended. That is one conclusion about which, as a former Chief Secretary, I would venture a slight criticism.
At the moment, we have a successful, self-regulating, revising Chamber. I do not reject the need from time to time for us to review our structures and procedures. However, an attempt to assimilate our role with that of the other place would probably start from a misunderstanding of the ethos of this House and might tend to undermine an important part of our constitution. I therefore support the broad conclusions of the report and look forward to future debates when we can enlarge and probe more deeply into the issues that arise.
6.43 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I rise in support of the report as a member of the Select Committee. I wish to concentrate my remarks on three
432
key points, mainly of principle: the removal of a political appointee as the presiding officer in your Lordships' House; the role of the Speaker and deputies within the Chamber; the mode of election of the Speaker; and the length of tenure.
First, however, I must refer to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, which, as might be expected, I will oppose if he presses it, for two reasons. I believe that the presiding officer of your Lordships' House should be independent and non-political. Also, the amendment would negate the decision of the House on 9 July last year and prevent further debate taking into account the many points raised today. It may well be that, at the end of the day, the House amends some of the proposals in the report, but it would be a breach to stop that discussion before it has been completed.
Many noble Lords have indicated their belief that the whole exercise is premature—a view that I do not accept. We are discussing today a point of principle. It is a fundamental principle that there should be a clear divide between political decision making, the conduct of the legislature and the judiciary, irrespective of the outcome of the constitutional debate. I feel so strongly about the matter because of my experience of being involved in preparing the constitutions of the then new democracies in eastern Europe. The criteria we firmly laid down were that there must be absolute independence of the judiciary from any political influence and that the same should apply to the presiding officer of the Parliament.
Here at home, our second Chamber breaches those principles. As head of the judiciary, the Lord Chancellor moves in a matter of seconds within the Chamber from political impartiality, while sitting on the Woolsack, to senior politician. John Wells, in his entertaining book on the House of Lords, has a wonderful description of the Lord Chancellor shuffling a few steps from the force field of the Throne, where he is the representative of the Monarch, to become another creature of partisan and bias, as the spokesman of the party that appointed him. In my time in your Lordships' House, three Lord Chancellors have carried out their multi-functional roles impeccably, but that is not the issue. Surely, it is time that the multi-functional role was removed.
We often hear reference to the patronage of the Prime Minister, yet when the opportunity arises to remove some patronage, somehow or other it is opposed. I find that very strange. I wonder what reaction there would have been if it had been suggested that there had been political interference in the appointments in the Speakerships in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. I am sure that the people who oppose these changes would be outraged at that suggestion.
In his book, The House of Lords—A Thousand years of British Tradition, Sir Colin Cole, the then Garter King of Arms, refers to the Lord Chancellor being the ex-officio Speaker of the House of Lords. The Lord Chancellor has a limited role, with only 14 per cent of his salary being allocated to the role of Speaker. As my

433
noble friend Lord Carter says, the position is not determined by statute but derives from Standing Order 18. The time has come for that Standing Order to be amended and the independence of your Lordships' House reasserted.
My second point is the role of the Speakership. In the debate on 16 June, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred to the need for fine tuning in defining that role. The Select Committee, under the able chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, has done just that. The proposals in the report have achieved a balance which maintains the ethos and principle of self-regulation that was clearly the majority wish of those who presented evidence, both written and verbal. The section of the report on this shows that self-regulation in your Lordships' House need not change with the election of our own presiding officer.
The transfer of the role of Leader at Question Time—which could be done while maintaining the round-the-House Question Time that we have adopted— and the decisions on whether a Private Notice Question should be taken are not monumental changes. Private Notice Questions should not be a matter for political debate between the leaders. They should be determined by an impartial person. The suggestion that there should sometimes be gentle guidance from the Speaker is also not a monumental issue. It would be general guidance not, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, suggested, people asking questions of the Speaker. Rather, the Speaker would give guidance when needed about what the Companion actually says. That has been interpreted by some in this debate to be the only role of the Speaker, which is wholly inaccurate. A thorough reading of the report makes that clear. Many other proposals are suggested, including ceremonial and other duties within the House. I was particularly interested in the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, about the educational role. That could be a very important role for the Speaker.
Why is it necessary to have some changes? Reference has been made to the role of the Whips. Like my noble friend Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, I should like to endorse that the work of the Whips has been increased considerably by their greater involvement in legislation. Apart from the logistics and practical difficulties, is it right that a junior Minister should take on a disciplinary role? It clearly could be seen as invidious for a Member of the Government to have responsibility for adherence to the procedural rules of the House, and there could be a perceived conflict of interest. It is unfortunate—and it has been discourteous—but of late there have been instances when noble Lords have ignored a Whip when attention has been drawn to a breach of the Companion. I do not believe that the same attitude would have been adopted to someone sitting on the Woolsack.
The Select Committee gave a great deal of consideration to the role of Deputy Speakers, taking into account that a new Speaker would be expected to spend considerably more time in the Chamber, not just at Question Time, and that there is an extension of
434
Grand Committee work. We somehow had to arrive at a balance between the three paid posts and the number of deputies, and 16 is probably the right figure. One important aspect is that currently no formal or informal training is given to new deputies The proposed smaller panel should receive formal training that could be constantly updated.
My last point relates to the election and length of tenure. At present, because of the political nature of the post, the Lord Chancellor changes when a new party comes into government. The decision for the election of the new Speaker not to coincide with the parliamentary term removes any doubt of the political influence as well as overcoming any practical difficulties that might arise following an election. It is also the correct decision for the Speaker to be elected rather than appointed. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, that we should do that by secret ballot, using an alternative vote. That ensures that the Speaker has the support of the whole House. That procedure was successfully used in the last vote that was undertaken by the whole House. Of course, the Speaker will continue to be the representative of the Monarch, by inviting the Queen to make the formal appointment.
In conclusion, I return to my main point of principle. We should not lose the opportunity to assert our independence, elect our own full-time presiding officer and remove the current political patronage. That can only be of benefit to the House.
Today we are discussing a take note Motion. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will not press his amendment, as this is an important debate, which we need to be able to continue.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, albeit that on this occasion I am unable to support the broad conclusions of this prestigious committee, for the many reasons that have already been given by many noble Lords in your Lordships' House and which I am certainly not going to repeat at this hour of night. However, I do support what the noble Baroness said about the educational role, as explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, that the office of Lord Chancellor should not be abolished. On that basis, and none other, I approach the debate.
The recommendations of the report were based on the assumption that the threat to abolish the office of Lord Chancellor shall be implemented, but as part of a complex plan to dismantle many of his functions, and were made without the remit of the terms of reference. That pre-empted substantive debate on the assumption that was the essential issue on which the whole report was based. That essential debate has in a sense been pre-empted. On this occasion, the symbiotic relationship cannot be disentangled or, as the noble

435
and learned Lord would agree, resolved—or not today. That complex plan, which we should not forget, of which this is but part, has its own agenda, as appears in separate proposed Bills on which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and other noble Lords, have spoken on other occasions with reasoned concern.
My speaking notes are in an awful mess, because I do not want to repeat what has been said. However, I believe that my following point has not been made. I take the view that the introduction of a Speaker is a serious and dangerous departure from tradition, for which there is absolutely no justification. How may such a person, whether elected or appointed, command respect and have authority, status or the precedence of rank of the Lord Chancellor, who has a seat in Cabinet and a vital constitutional role? The Lord Chancellor is responsible for the independence and appointment of the judiciary and a plethora of extraneous functions.
As for the value of this parliamentary role, let us not forget what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, wrote in the Law Quarterly Review of last January. On page 67 of that edition appeared his article on the Law Lords as an endangered heritage. I quote three crucial lines, where he says:
"His presence on the woolsack has symbolic significance, underlining the history and unity of the kingdom, and the origin of the house in the curia Regis. His ability to introduce bills is also of great practical significance. An obvious example is the Human Rights Bill in 1997".
Since then, he points out, there have been nine others, to which we can add what has happened since.
The House has ample powers to make self-regulation more effective and to restore the traditional disciplines by consensus, under the aegis of the usual channels, if only the usual channels could appreciate the importance of attention to retention of discipline. That was the case when I had the privilege to come here, well over 20 years ago. Initiatives have been taken, but they have not been very effective. Certain noble Lords now assume that self-regulation applies to other noble Lords alone. The length of questions and responses at Question Time has degraded that time beyond all recognition. Without Committee on the Floor of the House, there are interventions on Report that are no longer curtailed to questions. Third Reading is now treated as if it were a rerun of Report. The crucial contribution is a cross between the introduction of an educational system to teach people who come to the House what the disciplines are and the willingness of the usual channels to revert to their old traditions of enforcing them.
Having said that—which is crucial to my assessment of this situation—is it not then idle to pretend that we need a Speaker to do what we can do ourselves and do very much better, if we are prepared to do it? This is not a criticism of the House—it would be presumptuous for me to make such a criticism. It is only a suggestion that we could conduct our own affairs better if we wished, and that these recommendations are wholly unnecessary.
436
I also wanted—not just because it is here in my notes—to say a word of gratitude to noble Lords who served on the committee and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, for having afforded the opportunity for this debate. It is not easy to extend other than a trite welcome in view of the observations I have made.
The imposition of a Speaker by statute is opposed as neither requisite nor appropriate. If self-regulation needs to be improved, and I accept that it does, then, as masters of our own procedure, which we are, we could take steps within our own procedures in order to amend Standing Orders and the Companion. The PNQ, which was mentioned in the noble and learned Lord's report, is a very good example. I think we should accept that that should be done without delay; it is a first-rate suggestion. However, we do not need to have an imposed Speaker to do that.
No Speaker, under any circumstances, should ever serve as guardian of Standing Orders or of the Companion, regulate Question Time, impose adherence to Standing Orders or the Companion, or adjudicate on points of order, which it would inevitably come to, even if one takes a benign view of paragraph 26. The "light touch" referred to, with respect to the noble and learned Lord, in paragraph 16—I accept that it was not a unanimous report—really evinces scant practical sense as an exercise in persuasion. A "light touch" is mentioned, but how light?
The last question with which there is time to deal is the question of the Speaker sitting on the Woolsack. having one or two duties such as an ambassadorial role, sleeping within the palatial splendours of the Lord Chancellor's residence and having a stipend of about £100,000, and the concept that the report had to set to work to find him something to do. Well, although his functions on the Woolsack are pretty minimal, off the Woolsack, as has already been said, his functions are substantial.
Finally, I ask whether it is in the interests of the body politic. Is it conducive to restoration of trust and to the due dispatch of business in this House to foreclose on consultation and compromise and then abolish the office of Lord Chancellor? Should not the House take note of this report with fundamental reservations? The immediate, irreversible destruction of an ancient office first arose on a bungled reshuffle. It was no manifesto commitment. Swift reprieve had to be granted to enable this House to sit. Imposition of the proposed Bill by resort to the Parliament Acts would address no grievance of the nation, no wish of the people and would fail to acknowledge the wisdom of magnanimity in politics.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I rise to take part in this debate as a lawyer with a deep interest in constitutional law, as one who has a huge admiration for our unwritten constitution and as one who is convinced—and has for years been convinced—that that constitution is best served by evolutionary

437
and incremental change rather than by knee-jerk reaction. The fatal weakness of the report that we are discussing is that it assumes that the office of Lord Chancellor will be abolished. If not, it says that the House will think again. Buy why did the committee not think again? Why do we have no plan B? It must be an open question as to whether there will be change or abolition. We do not have a plan B. The Government themselves, as far as I can see, are unaware that there is a difference between abolishing the office and changing it. It is a substantial difference, as I should like to demonstrate without taking too much time about it.
I know that various Lord Chancellors have traced back the office of Lord Chancellor almost to Boadicea, but the only records that I have been able to find suggest that the first Lord Chancellor was Chancellor Maurice, in 1067, within months of the coronation of William the Conqueror. He was undoubtedly the King's spiritual as well as temporal adviser. He was—as is the present Lord Chancellor, if he knows it—the "Keeper the King's Conscience". For that reason, no doubt, he and most of his successors were made bishops shortly after taking office. He was the Keeper of the Great Seal—I mention that because it is a matter which may be of current importance—not on his own behalf, but on behalf of the King. From time to time the King, in the 13th and 14th centuries, took it back. It may well be that, if the Government succeed in abolishing the office of Lord Chancellor, they should ask Her Majesty whether she would like it hack. She may well want it.
On more than occasion—this also has lessons for us—the office of Lord Chancellor has been left vacant. Nevertheless, it continued to exist. When it occurred, Commissioners were appointed as Keepers of the Great Seal. I have a vague recollection—I have no records in which to look it up—that I was myself once one of three Keepers of the Great Seal. I think that it happened when the Lord Chancellor went abroad and, not unnaturally, did not take it with him. It seemed highly unlikely that I would be asked to do anything about it, and I was not. I have no notes of the facts, but I think that that was the case.
As I say, my plea is for gradual alteration, which I believe is the key to the success of our constitution. I have mentioned the Lord Chancellor, and we will all be very familiar with the changes that have been taking place since the 11th century. I refer to the position of the Master of the Rolls as I know rather more about that. I believe that the first Master of the Rolls was John de Langton in 1286. He was secretary to the monarch. I do not doubt that he also dabbled in politics.
The changes that have taken place since then can be illustrated by two brief snapshots. I take a snapshot towards the end of the 1600s. Sir John Trevor was the holder of the office of Master of the Rolls at that time. He was elected more than once to the House of Commons. According to the books, he was an equity judge of great distinction and great honesty, which they contrast with his great dishonesty in his political capacity. However, on two occasions the House of
438
Commons elected him Speaker. Rumours got about that all was not particularly well. In due course the House of Commons convicted him of what were called "high crimes and misdemeanours". He had accepted a backhander of 1,000 guineas from no less than the Corporation of London to expedite a Bill. The Commons thought badly of that and moved to expel him. However, as I say, he was a good lawyer and he appreciated that the Commons' authority would at least be dented if it did not have the Mace so he took it home with him. Apparently, there was a stalemate for four days. Eventually, mediation took place and the Mace was returned. The point of that story is that he remained Master of the Rolls for another 21 years until his death in 1717.
Today, of course, other changes have occurred. The present incumbent is, after all, head of the solicitors' profession with considerable powers over it. He is the president of the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal. I ought to mention in parenthesis that as his office is so old there is no requirement on him to have any legal or other qualifications to be a judge. The present incumbent has those qualifications but he does riot have to have them. Nor does the Lord Chancellor. On one occasion I was about to pull the Lord Chancellor's leg and realised that I could not do it as it would come home to roost with a vengeance as we were both only ex officio judges. We were not real judges at all. Let us not run away with the idea that there is a very strong connection between the Lord Chancellor and the judiciary; there is not. There is perhaps a slightly stronger connection vis-a-vis the Master of the Rolls but that is by the way.
The details of these changes do not really matter. However, as I have mentioned before, what matters is that I do not think that the Government have given the slightest thought to the difference between abolishing the office of Lord Chancellor and reforming it. I do not think they even know that there is a difference. As is recorded at the beginning of the report, they spoke almost in consecutive breaths of reform and abolition. I challenge the noble Baroness the Leader of the House to tell the House of any single objective of government policy that cannot be achieved by altering, amending or reforming the office of Lord Chancellor as opposed to abolishing it. For example, the Government can revoke all statutory duties, including those relating to the judiciary, which now in any way bind the Lord Chancellor. They can make alternative arrangements for his duties to be performed by independent, nonpolitical bodies, as, indeed, is suggested in relation to appointing judges. No doubt the same could apply to ecclesiastical duties. If the Government wished to transfer them from a government Minister, they could no doubt be taken on board by the Church in one form or another.
The links between the government of the day and the Lord Chancellor's office could be severed altogether. The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs could take on board or, as the case may be, retain, all those functions which, in the opinion of the Government, have to be maintained in a political capacity, but which do not, of course, have to be

439
maintained through links with the Lord Chancellor. The present incumbent could resign leaving the office vacant, but the office would still exist. That would leave this House free to have an "election"—I put that in quotation marks—to produce the name of a person that this House would like to see occupy the office of Lord Chancellor. That name could be conveyed to Her Majesty through the usual channels. I have not the slightest doubt that Her Majesty would appoint a new Lord Chancellor on that basis. The Lord Chancellor so appointed would hold the same office as Chancellor Maurice in 1067. It would, of course, be a very different office comprising different duties and different characteristics but it would retain a great deal of the prestige that has accompanied that office down the centuries.
It was suggested in the debate that the Lord Chancellor's importance would attach itself to his function as ceremonial head of this House, to his ambassadorial functions and to his functions as a host, and perhaps as a guest of others, on behalf of this House. It would certainly help him in his capacity as a public relations front man for this House, to use a horrible expression. It might even help him if he took on a non-ecclesiastical pastoral role to our flock—an educational role if you prefer. At the moment he is second in the order of precedence after the Royal Family, the Archbishop of Canterbury being first in that order of precedence. The Prime Minister is only fourth and the Speaker of the House of Commons only sixth in that order of precedence. It would not be a disaster, but it would be a great pity, if that was all squandered and we had a new officer of this House who featured nowhere in the order of precedence, or possibly very low down, as does the Lord Chief Justice who is about 40th. We ought to hold on to that in the general interest.
I am sure that if we call someone the Lord Chancellor who does not hold the same office, albeit in a changed character, he would lose all the prestige and all the influence, or a great part of it, that the Lord Chancellor at present enjoys.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Brennan: My Lords, the House of Lords has national recognition; it does not have a national identity. Our people know what this place is; very few of them understand what it does. Therefore, our vital role as a reviewing and revising Chamber that occasionally challenges the other place must be protected. The preservation of this function, the maintenance of its efficiency, and wherever possible its improvement, is therefore a permanent task. There is no democratic Chamber that can confidently reassure itself that it is immune to change or reform. This House is not an exception.
Having looked at the speakers' list I think that, certainly in parliamentary seniority terms, I must be one of the youngest contributors to this debate. It is with the expectation of youth that I speak about two aspects of the proposed reform. I use "expectation" with hesitation, because a moment ago the noble Lord,
440
Lord Rees, prudently warned us that a Speaker with undue energy could become dangerous. He put me in mind of an 18th-century tombstone I once saw, which read: "He was a good man who was never afflicted with enthusiasm". I shall therefore welcome the report with youthful caution, and with two conceptual questions in mind.
The first is about what role a Speaker would play in the proper functioning of this House and its procedures. Self-regulation in this place has struck me in my time here as one of its unique and most valuable characteristics. However, self-regulation is an advantage that should not be permitted to be squandered in the direction of parliamentary self-indulgence. In my humble experience, Question Time is not a set of questions and answers. Plenty has been said about that today. In eight minutes, there should be an opportunity for 10, 12 or 15 short and sharp questions with equally valuable replies. Second Reading speeches figure at every stage on a Bill. Repetition is a norm, not an exception. That has to change. To glory in the rubric of self-regulation and never to question its efficiency is a very deceptive step for a parliamentary chamber to take.
I invite the House to conclude that the role of a Speaker in that context is not so much to dictate to the House from the Woolsack, but to be what I would call a reference point of welcome, education and the preservation of standards, with the availability to be consulted and give advice where necessary. He should act as a guide, not a pastor, which seems to introduce a concept of vocation, the degree of devotion of which would be so high in looking after 350 politicians that it is totally inappropriate.
My second point is to remind us of what the late, lamented Lord Williams of Mostyn probably meant when he talked about the guardian of the Companion and of the ethos of the House. He was not talking about command or intervention. Surely he meant a point of reference through which the entire Chamber could seek the maintenance of the standards that preserve the advantage of self-regulation.
I hope that my next point does not sound pretentious in the procedural context. Historically, no chamber in the world has not at one time or another—I hope very rarely indeed in this country—looked to the Speaker, its representative, as its defender between it and the Government, and it and those who would attack it. That is an important eleinent of the role not to be underestimated. Democratic hubris is unforgivable when we let danger rise without means of some representative protection.
I change from the procedural to what has been called the ambassadorial function. That is the right word for going abroad, but the wrong word for speaking about this House to one's own people. It seems a vital role of anyone occupying the post that they should speak and explain in public and private about the function of this place. Debates can go on for ever and a day about its composition and the continuance or abolition of the Lord Chancellor.

441
Democratically, the people want to know whether the House is fulfilling the function that it is there to perform.
That vital role will not be achieved through any system of self-regulation. Most people outside this House would not understand how a place could self-regulate. The Government spend their time, quite rightly, investigating every aspect of society that claims that it can self-regulate. We are not an exception. The ambassadorial role abroad and representative role at home is very important.
I have sought to speak as neither a modernist nor a traditionalist, but as a realist. The membership of this House involves us all in exercising a parliamentary duty to the people of this country. A Speaker would be one aspect of that, and not a central or major one. His role would surely be to serve us and them, and to achieve wherever he or she can continued efficiency and certainly dignity. By those means, he would ensure that we commanded the respect of the public. I thank the committee. It was endowed with wisdom. There is a tomorrow, and it will involve a Speaker of some kind.
7.27 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I, too, am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord and his committee, because his report makes me even more sure of my position. I believe that we need a Speaker like we need a hole in the head.
I have been in your Lordships' House for only 12 years, and I think that I am about its 23rd-youngest Member. However, I am extremely proud of the way in which we go about our business. We are quite unique, as the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, observed. For me, a special source of pride is Question Time. My guests never fail to be highly impressed at how it runs. They always ask who was calling the speakers to ask the next question. The answer, as we know, is no one: it is their Lordships, at the centre of the House. I agree entirely with the call of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, for very short questions at Question Time. It is certainly my technique, and I like to think that I use my questions to good effect.
Noble Lords have made observations on the Lord Chancellor's minimal role in the House. I believe that the Chairman of Committees could take on part of the Lord Chancellor's role. The noble Lord the Chairman of Committees may be busy and, as he indicated, he would not like to take on any of the Lord Chancellor's role. We are told that the Speaker will have a minimal role in the running of the House, but that he will have a Cabinet Minister's salary. Has anyone informally consulted the Senior Salaries Review Body, as it might have something to say about that?
Self-regulation restrained my urge to intervene in the excellent speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig. He asked why there was to be no political role for a former Lord Speaker. The Lord Speaker's office will be very expensive. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, talked about the use of taxpayers' funds. The answer to the noble and gallant
442
Lord's question is pensions. My reasoning is that a former Lord Speaker would almost certainly be expected not to undertake any business activities, for obvious reasons.
During the debate, all noble Lords have agreed that we need to maintain self-regulation, but my noble friend Lord Trefgarne said that new duties for the Speaker would arise as surely as night follows day. Many noble Lords have covered the perils of having a Speaker. The noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, questioned the Leader of the House about the speakers list. From that we can move on to the Lord Speaker having a role in selecting speakers for a debate.
There is a greater danger. Your Lordships agreed that another place is not well suited to scrutinising legislation. The Speaker selects and groups amendments, but in your Lordships' House nothing on God's earth can stop one of your Lordships from tabling an amendment and debating to the extent that he desires, even in the wash-up just before the dissolution of Parliament at the time of a general election. If we have a Speaker, eventually he will be grouping and selecting amendments. It is no use saying that it is a matter for the House to decide. Eventually that will become necessary, as my noble friend said, as surely as night follows day. I expect that that will start to bite just at the point when noble Lords opposite are in opposition and on the Back Benches. I know not when that will be.
My final point concerns the suggestion that a junior Whip is not in a good position to calm down, as it were, a more senior Member of the House. I strongly disagree. The Whip, on behalf of the Leader, has to interpret the sense of the House. If he misinterpreted that, it would become apparent to all those in the Chamber. But if the great Lord decided to carry on undeterred, against the sense of the House, he would devalue the strength of his argument and it would merely be a modest cost of self-regulation. I have no difficulty in offering guidance to any noble Lord. There will always be two or three Members of the House who, from time to time, will abuse the freedoms of the House. But that is just a minor difficulty. The costs and perils of the solution proposed are disproportionate to the perceived problem.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, in my evidence to the Select Committee, I described myself as a minimalist on this subject. I continue to say that. I have some sympathy with the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, and, indeed the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. If nothing is going wrong, why should we try to fix it? Nevertheless, the Government seem to have had a sort of constitutional epileptic fit and have decided that the office of Lord Chancellor shall be abolished and that we have to move on. Also in those terms the committee, under the distinguished chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, was right in saying that we assume that the office of Lord Chancellor is to be abolished and that we have to move on. It is right that that

443
should be the case. So if the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, decides to divide the House, I shall vote against him.
I would do that with some regret because there are some serious arguments on his side. Speaking as a minimalist, I would not reject wholeheartedly the committee's report. Nevertheless, I have some reservations about it. On the matter of Private Notice Questions, as far as I remember, in my experience very few PNQs come here, except those that go first to the other place. I am not particularly bothered about that, because I recall that when I was in opposition, sitting in the place of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, I had to take only one PNQ when the House of Commons was not sitting.
I am slightly bothered about Question Time, as I wrote in my evidence. I wonder whether what the Select Committee recommends is either rational or operable. When I first came to this House all those years ago, and when, for instance, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, wanted to be heard from the Back Benches, we had a proper, open outcry. Noble Lords would cry, "Strathclyde!". If I wanted to speak from my Back Bench, Members would cry, "Williams!". That seemed to work well, but it does not seem to work well now. Therefore, we must have an arrangement to cure the malaise.
I am not sure about turns. There are Labour and Conservative Benches, but they are not in the tradition of the House. Anyone in this House can sit wherever he wants. The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, for example, sits at the back of the Liberal Democrat Benches, where my friend Lord Pitt of blessed memory used to sit. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, still sits behind me on the Bishops' Benches. Let us suppose that the noble Lords, Lord Jopling and Lord Stoddart, want to intervene during Question Time and the Lord Speaker has to say, "It is the turn of the Bishops". The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is not a Bishop, as far as I know, so that would be difficult. The Lord Speaker might say, "It is the turn of the Liberal Democrats", and the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, might be sitting there.
I therefore find that whole arrangement, as described by the Select Committee, difficult to operate. Ultimately, the Lord Speaker will be required to call Members by name and that goes beyond the self-regulation that I supported in this House. I believe that Question Time should be left to the House to determine, and in my 20 years' experience the Leader of the House is and has been perfectly capable of doing that. Nevertheless, if that is what is required, I do not believe in terms for Benches. If the Lord Speaker, if that is his or her name, has to call someone during Question Time, the Member will have to be called by name. I regret that because it is the thin end of a large wedge.
I agree that there should be no salaried Deputy Speakers. Nevertheless, as regards Deputy Chairmen of Committees, the Select Committee in its report wants to have its cake and not eat it. In other words, if the Deputy Chairman of Committees is to be a Deputy
444
Speaker, he should perform the duties of a Deputy Speaker and not make a token appearance on the Woolsack. Either we have two Deputy Speakers already salaried, like the Chairman of Committees and the Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees, or we have one or two Deputy Speakers who are properly remunerated for the job they are meant to do. It is no good saying that the Deputy Chairmen of Committees will make a token appearance on the Woolsack. I do not believe that that will work.
On status and salary, again I am a minimalist. I do not believe that the Lord Speaker, or Lord Chairman, in this House should compete with the Speaker in another place in terms of prestige. It is fair enough that he should entertain foreign dignitaries and use the Lord Chancellor's apartment to do that, but I do not believe that he should blow himself up too much. And I do not believe that the salary recommended by the committee is quite right.
Certainly, there must be a dignity in the Chair, or whatever name is given to the holder of the position, of this House. But, in my view, it would be wrong to pretend that he or she would in any way occupy the role in this House that the Speaker of the House of Commons occupies in that House. In my view, for what it is worth, the future Lord Speaker, if that is to be the title, should be modest in his or her ambition. There is no place at all for the thin edge of what may be, as many noble Lords have said, a rather large wedge and, again in my view, the House should resist it.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I earnestly hope that the House will be brave enough to digest the disappointment when it learns that it is I who is speaking and not my noble friend Lord Patten, who was listed in error by the Government Whips' Office. That is not the only error that that office has made in this afternoon's speakers' list: my noble friend Lord Rees is the other.
The ground of the report itself has been so well trodden down this afternoon that I do not believe there is any call for me to expand upon it. Suffice it to say that I go along with the idea of self-regulation simply because, on the whole, I detest regulators. They are intolerable. They are people who always seek to add to their powers and I should not like to see them among your Lordships.
I fear the use of the word "Speaker". The Speaker is essentially a regulatory person. I am so sorry that the noble Lord who is an ex-Speaker is no longer present because he seemed to miss the point that Speakers are regulatory people, and we do not want to have them among us.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am very grateful for that support. Nor do I believe that we want a ceremonial person. The trouble with such a person is that either he is content to be a ceremonial person, in

445
which case he becomes boring and a matter for too many jokes or, alternatively, he will break out of his shell and wish to acquire more functions. I do not know which of those two I fear most. Therefore, let us have no ceremonial persons.
I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, has been more than obliging to the Government. They did not deserve the kindly and thoughtful treatment that they received from him and his committee. They have put us all in a mess and he has been more than generous and accommodating to them.
I believe that the committee might have paused to ask some simple questions. Why and how did we get here and who put us into this mess? I cannot be one of those who is content to consider the report in isolation. It is indissolubly part of a chain of events. It is to that chain of events that I wish to refer briefly.
The Government's reputation for wisdom and thinking things through has not—I want to put this very gently—emerged unscathed. They learnt—rather painfully, I suppose—that mere determination to get rid of something which they considered wrong was not enough, and they have been left somewhat stranded. They found themselves confronted with a deadlock in your Lordships' House and they could ease their way out of it only with the rather strange and unexpected compromise that 91 of the detested hereditary Peers would somehow—
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, 92.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend. How very important that amendment is. The Government could ease their way out of the deadlock only with the compromise that 92 hereditary Peers should be allowed, so to speak, to take root here temporarily. They could remain here until or unless the Government came forward with a system which would be reasonably satisfactory to everyone and which might endure. The majority of my noble colleagues who were hereditary Peers and departed did so on the basis of that promise. That promise remains of very great importance.
The compromise version of the House of Lords which then emerged was not altogether what the Government hoped it would be. It became something of a thorn in the flesh. I personally believe that thorns in the flesh of governments are very healthy things. There were times when I did my best to support the government of the Conservative Party. Some people have been unkind enough to suggest that I could be anything so offensive as a thorn in their flesh. It was never my intention to be that; nevertheless, I believe that thorns in the flesh are quite healthy things for governments to have.
The noble and learned Lord the then Lord Chancellor would not accept the possibility of the Government going back on their undertaking. I believe that he deserves our total respect—he certainly has mine—and I am very sorry that he is not present this evening to hear me say so publicly. The
446
Government were then faced with the urgent need to replace him with someone rather more flexible, and where did they go? What a hunting ground to select—the Dome.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. Would he care to speculate whether, if we had a Speaker, he would remind the noble Lord that the Companion states that debate should be relevant to the Question before the House?
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, if the noble Lord had been listening to me more kindly and more attentively, he would have understood that personally I strongly hold the view that the whole business of this report is quite inseparable from the mess which the Government wished upon us. I hope that we shall not have any more of that.
The Government found the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor who presently occupies the Woolsack. I am so sorry that he is not here tonight because I should have said exactly the same thing with rather more pleasure and with at least the same force. Having appointed him as Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and having given him the baggage of constitutional reforms, which are ill thought out and certainly not the subject of any consultation, they placed him in a fairly difficult position. He was ready to do what the Government wished; in other words, he took a more flexible view, shall we say, of agreements. Evidently, he believed that, with the passage of time, agreements solemnly entered into and repeated could be treated more or less as perishables.
I do not believe that that was at all fair dealing. Many have felt, and still feel, that they have been tricked and that serious constitutional changes were being used to help the Government out of a difficult situation that was entirely of their own making. It is true that some of us enjoyed a bit of a laugh when it appeared that once again the Government had failed to think things through: they were not able to abolish the office of Lord Chancellor—one of their reforms—as that would have resulted in chaos.
The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs found his journey to his office at the Department for Constitutional Affairs interrupted and he was obliged to use the Woolsack as a kind of staging point on his journey. I do not think that there is any need at all for any action on this report, at least not until the intended' legislation, of which we have seen nothing yet, comes within sight of land. Meanwhile, I cannot help viewing the Government, or at least those who steer them from on high, as a collection of paint-strippers, so keen on using their blow-torches that they find it difficult to distinguish between the peeling paint and the good, sound woodwork that has survived for many centuries. It is a matter that I take very seriously. It shows in almost everything they do, and increasingly as the years go by.
7.53 p.m.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, that the Lord Speaker's department will not get his name wrong. I am sure that it will be very wary of his formidable reputation in this House.
This has been an interesting debate on an excellent report. We all bring to it our varied experiences over the years. In my case I spent 22 years as a Member of the other House under four Speakers, two of whom are now in this House. I have another distinction, perhaps unique in this House, that on two occasions I was asked to leave—slung out in common parlance. I was asked to leave first by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, for a speech that I gave on the Canada Bill, when we were repatriating the Canadian constitution—I am sure that my noble friend will remember—and secondly by Speaker Boothroyd when I referred to someone as a criminal some five years before he was brought before the courts. The problem was that he was a Member of this House.
When I came to this House I was introduced by my noble friends Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld and Lord Carter. I remember my noble friend Lord Carter taking me into his office to talk to me about the distinction between the Commons and the Lords, a conversation that I remember very well. He said to me that this is not the Commons; it proceeds by way of custom and practice—I think he had reservations about that himself—and with less aggression. He advised me to attend the Chamber, as I have done over the past two-and-a-half years, often spending four or five hours a day here to try to understand the mood of the place and how it works. The truth is that, despite my earliest reservations, it works; it works well but there are problems.
I felt confident enough to make a written submission to the committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, as did many other Members. I understand that it was helpful to the committee in its proceedings as I dealt with many of the issues that were raised subsequently. I also recognise that one cannot replicate the Commons in the Lords. In my view there is a distinct difference in the role of the two Houses. The distinction is founded on the issue of primacy. As long as this House recognises and accepts the primacy of the Commons, its role will remain distinctly different. The moment it crosses the line on primacy, the way in which it conducts its business will change and the self-regulatory regime will come to an end, if only because of pressure from the other place. Proceedings on the Criminal Justice Bill, which I have raised on a number of occasions and I shall carry on raising, threaten that distinction.
I recognise that the House is changing. The loss of hereditary Peers and the further reforms, particularly the advent of an appointed House, will all exert much pressure on our customs and practices. Inevitably, there will be a new spring in the step of those who are appointed. That pressure will sorely test the House where it is at its weakest, and it is in those areas that I find myself justifying the case for a light-touch
448
Speakership. The truth is that there is a lack of clear, continuing and immediate oral guidance to Members during proceedings on procedure and proprieties.
Over the past two years I have found myself watching carefully the body language of the Clerks at the Table, particularly the body language of Sir Michael Davies who recently retired. He was very expressive in seeking to indicate to the Benches, in whatever way he could, when he thought things were going wrong. The truth is that there is often confusion in the way in which the House operates. On a number of occasions I have seen that during the course of Bills. Whereas in the Commons, Clerks are available to advise the Chairman, if it is a Committee on the Floor, or the Speaker, in this place there is a physical gap which leads to many problems.
There are other problems, many of which have been referred to this evening: speaking and walking out; making speeches that are unrelated to the business under discussion; the gross exceeding of the recommended time limits to the exclusion of other Members; the lack of consideration by some in asking long, rambling questions during Questions; and, one that has not been raised this evening, the unpoliced advocacy on the Floor of the House, sometimes under conditions of direct pecuniary interest. The one I feel most strongly about—it is a surprise for me to mention it—is the damage to the image of this House from the undignified spectacle of Members shouting and bawling at each other during Question Time. That is grossly unfair on those who may wish to be heard but who are unprepared to enter into the fray. It is worse than any of the practices that I can recall from my period in the other House. No Speaker I have known would ever have tolerated it in the other place. For former MPs it is no problem; we are used to the rough and tumble.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, over 20 years ago no bawling ever took place when I came to this House. In my respectful opinion, it is largely engendered because people who come to this House do not wish to regard self-regulation as relating to them, but only to others.
Lord Campbell-Savours: Well, my Lords, perhaps there is an element of selfishness in that which should be dealt with by someone in the chair who on occasions might be required to intervene.
For former MPs the situation is not a problem. We are used to the rough and tumble. But many noble Lords are not politicians. They came to the House for other reasons. I know that some of them do not like this bear market approach to Question Time.
There are problems. The question is how can we address them without compromising self-regulation. I join those who argue that the Speaker should run a fairly light regime. He or she should provide a focal point for guidance and ultimate authority on guarding the Companion.
On the issue of the Speaker's role in the Chamber, I do not recommend the calling of individuals by name, as happens in the Commons, although it might be

449
required in certain proceedings where there is conflict. The Speaker might, where necessary, wish to guide the House with reference to an individual Member, either orally or by an indication by hand, but not by party. I suspect that the need for such interventions by the Speaker would be rare; and that the House would soon learn to live with the new conventions. Crucially, the Speaker would have the discretion as to when to intervene and therefore would need to be able to understand and read the House very carefully indeed.
Most of the other responsibilities of Mr Lords' Speaker or the Lord Speaker—are singular or plural because there has been confusion tonight when referring to this term—are set out in the report's recommendations. The report talks about the Lord Speaker, but some noble Lords have referred to "Lords", plural, speaker.
I agreed with most of the responsibilities in my own submission. There are, however, one or two areas that have been excluded from the report. I would normally expect a Speaker to deal with such issues as answering to the House on matters of Palace of Westminster security; reporting to the House on matters of access; dealing with aspects of the internal administration and appointments: announcing the heads of business in debate; and perhaps the occasional admonishment of—as my noble friend Lord Borrie said—are repeat offenders. I hope that further consideration will be given to those matters.
The advantages of a light-touch Speakership are that most of the House's self-regulation would be preserved; Members who are rarely heard at peak time would be more likely to intervene; and the House would have a focal point of authority which was available but not obtrusive.
Finally, and in my view very importantly, there is the issue of the quality of the person who is to be the Speaker. One should pick a Speaker who understands not only procedure but also the House in all its moods; someone who is capable of being utterly dispassionate; who recognises that this is a self-regulating House and that it wishes to remain so; and who is prepared to stand up to both government and House bullies. Speakers are often bullied. They must have the courage to tell people where to get off—to put the issue bluntly.
One should pick someone who understands the need to avoid picking an argument with the Government of the day in public, but who will argue passionately in private if necessary; someone who understands that his role is to work with the Speaker of the day in the Commons and not to compete; and, also—and we did not do so on the last occasion in the Commons; and I made my views known at the time—one should pick a Speaker on the basis of rotation between the parties and the Cross-Benches. There is a danger that parties think that they can afford to risk taking the Speakership twice in a row. Indeed, in my view that has implications for the future decisions on who becomes Speaker.
I believe that the selection of the Speaker is very important. It might well be that these matters are to be dealt with at sorne stage in the future. These matters
450
must be dealt with very early on because the House has to recognise that this is a momentous decision that will have major implications for the future credibility of this House.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, it is nearly 10 years since I had the privilege of becoming a Member of this House. I tried to learn as quickly as I could the difference between the way it functions and the way in which the House of Commons operates. I am delighted to follow my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. I agree with a great deal of what he has said, although I differ in one or two detailed respects.
I learned quickly that this House has many strengths. I never tire of telling Members of the Commons about those respects in which this Chamber could well be a model for the other place. Indeed, they tend to agree with that. I judge this report, which by and large is very good, greatly on whether it will help us to reinforce the strength of this House or whether it will in some way undermine the very traditions which have made it so effective. I believe that the report passes the test fairly well. It enables the House to maintain the very strong points of its procedures while gently suggesting ways forward.
Of course, as many Speakers have said, this House is changing anyway. We cannot simply pretend that change is not taking place, regardless of this particular report and these suggestions. We cannot set this place in concrete. However, I would say that not all change is inevitably the thin end of a wedge or that it leads to a downward slippery slope. I could think of other metaphors. After all, the House is in control of these changes. If further changes are suggested after these have been given effect to—I hope that we shall do that—this House can say that it does not want to go any further, or that it does not even like the changes already introduced. It is not so weak and feeble surely that once it starts on a process it has to go on and on. It is not in the character of this House to be like that.
So I believe that this House has largely got the matter right. The report represents a good way forward. After all, it does not suggest any change in responsibility away from self-regulation. As I understand it, it states that certain of the self-regulatory responsibilities that now lie with the Leader of the House or with the Whips will move to the new post; but it will still be self-regulatory.
The late Lord Williams got it right when he talked about the guardian of the Companion. No one understood this House better than he. No one had a better feel for this House or was more sensitive to our moods—what we wanted and did not want. His contribution to the debate was a very good one.
However, I agree with my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours and others about Questions. Of course Private Notice Questions—seldom though they occur—should be decided by the holder of the new post rather than by the Leader. After all, a PNQ may represent a matter that is sensitive and embarrassing to the Government. I am sure that our present Leader

451
can, but it is difficult for her to decide on a PNQ that may be awkward—that may even be awkward for her personally, if it is directed at her. Surely it is better that someone impartial should make that decision.
As for ordinary Questions, my sense is that we have not got it right. It may be that 20 or 30 years ago it was not as it is now. I can speak only from my experience over almost 10 years. Even as an ex-MP, I have still felt bullied by louder voices than mine to give way to them when I was competing to speak. I sometimes found it intimidating and just gave way. In a way, that seems the right thing to do, except that one always gives way to the same handful of people. So I did not like that.
The whole procedure is undignified. I have talked to people who have observed us in the Public Gallery. Whereas they are full of praise for our selfregulation—for the discipline with which we handle Committee and Report and take it in turns; for the way that debates with a speakers list operate; and so on—they say, "It is a bit awkward in Questions with the supplementaries".
So I hope that we feel that the dignity of the House and the high standards that we set ourselves would be better maintained if the person on the Woolsack could indicate, where there is conflict and argument, who might be the most appropriate person to ask a supplementary. Of course, it is easier to decide if it is a party as a whole, but it may on occasion be necessary to refer to an individual where two Members from the same Benches seek to ask a supplementary.
I welcome the idea of voting for a Speaker—and by the alternative vote. I find the alternative vote a simple procedure. If the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, wants a little chat afterwards, I do not want to be patronising, but I should be happy to discuss it with him. It is very simple and we could all understand it.
Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords, may we all have a seminar?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, a seminar is not necessary. I am tempted to exceed my time just to explain it, but it is really not all that difficult.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord should not worry about exceeding his time, because this is not a time-limited debate, so he is entitled to speak for as long as he likes. Will he also give us a seminar on other forms of voting?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, first, the advice that we have been given by the Whips is that we will sit for far too long if we do not stick to the indicated time. I should also be totally out of order to explain that now, as it is not the subject of the debate, but I should be delighted to have a little chat afterwards, or at any time that suits the noble Earl. The system is easy. Having been a Minister in Northern Ireland, I have learnt about some other electoral systems, such as those used there, so I could detain him for a long time if he wants, but I promise him that I shall try to be brief.
452
I am a little concerned about electronic communication. I remember that when I first came here, I said to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde—he may remember this—that I thought that the way Division results were announced here was a little undignified compared with that in the Commons. Eight or nine years ago, when I believe the conversation took place, he even wondered whether there was some way to improve that. The furniture militates against that, but we could sufficiently rearrange the furniture so that the Clerks could sit nearer the holder of the new post, rather than at the present distance. Again, that would be more dignified. I am not against electronic communication, but it would be more in keeping with the dignity of this House if the Clerks were to sit in earshot of the holder of the post and vice versa.
I have only two more points to make. I appreciate that there is concern at the other end of the Corridor about the title of Speaker. I have some anxiety about the title Lord Speaker myself. I do not have an answer, but we should consider the problem rather than take any one particular title as given at this point.
This will be an attractive post. I could write an advertisement for the post—"Desirable residence, good salary, congenial company, pleasant working conditions"—and I could go on and on. Many Members of the House would like to hold that post. But we will not be so stupid as to choose someone who is not sensitive to the many concerns that have been expressed. We will not put someone into orbit to do what he likes after he has been elected for a set number of years; and he would not be so foolish as to accept a post on terms that are against the spirit and mood of this House. There are many possible excellent contenders. Unless we play our cards very badly, we will get someone who understands what this House and self-regulation are about, and who will not rush into the job like an empire-builder, desperate to increase his powers, strength and authority. I think that we will get someone who will meet the needs of the House and be sensitive to the many good points made in this debate.
8.14 p.m
Baroness Amos: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will intervene again briefly to respond to some of the points made. This has been a very helpful debate and an opportunity to get a sense of the House's views. A range of views have been expressed, on which there will be an opportunity to reflect. I will have further discussions with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, his committee and the usual channels and table a Motion for decision.
I sense an emerging consensus in certain areas: a strong desire to maintain self-regulation and not to create new powers. There is some consensus on the functions of a Speaker outside the Chamber, in particular the ambassadorial and educational role, and on the method of appointment, although I have noted the comments of some noble Lords on the matter.

453
It may he helpful if I make some points clear. I underline in particular that I see this as a House matter. The Government have made two things clear. The first is their commitment to abolishing the post of Lord Chancellor in its present form; therefore, the House of Lords retaining the status quo is not an option. The second is their commitment to a clear separation between Parliament and the judiciary. The Government do not envisage the Speaker of the Lords retaining any of the Lord Chancellor's judicial or executive functions. In the light of those two commitments, the House must decide what form the Speakership will take in this House.
Many speakers have stressed the importance of self-regulation and the important correlation between the ethos and culture of this House and self-regulation. As I said in my opening remarks, a Speakership as described in the report is fully consistent with self-regulation and will strengthen rather than weaken it. I do not see the proposals as an attack on self-regulation. But self-regulation means that we all have a responsibility to make it work. The authority and respect conferred on a Speaker would emanate from this House. It is important for the House to bear that in mind.
Let me now discuss the relationship between the role of the Leader of the House and the proposed Speaker. I am concerned that the authority of the Leader of the House is seen as residing in the procedural role played during Starred Questions or in the granting of PNQs. I see the Leader's role as much wider than that—representing the interests of this House in Parliament, government, internationally and with key stakeholders domestically, and holding areas of responsibility as a government Minister. I regard having a Speaker and a Leader representing the interests of the House as a positive addition rather than a negation of the role of Leader.
I have been asked to set out the timing of consideration of the constitutional reform proposals involving the reform of the judiciary. The Bill will be introduced in this House towards the end of February, and a timetable is being discussed in the usual channels.
A range of views on the title of the post have been expressed, and I have listened carefully to the arguments. I will reflect on the points made and consult with the usual channels, as I will on the other issues raised. We need to work to achieve consensus.
To conclude, I hope that the House sees this as an opportunity. The House has changed and will continue to change. We need not fear change; we need to take the initiative and manage that change in a way that will enhance the House's authority and its credibility.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, would the noble Baroness mind answering my question: which of the Government's policy objectives could not be achieved without abolishing the office of Lord Chancellor?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am not aware of that being a part of this debate. This debate is about the Speakership of the House of Lords. The issues with respect to the Government's proposals on constitutional reform will form part of the discussion on the Bill that will come to this House. There will be a full and frank discussion at Second Reading, in Committee and at other stages.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I too have found this a most helpful and interesting debate. I have been much encouraged by the views of a number of noble Lords that were not far from my own. None the less, this would not be the time to take the view of the House on these matters in general terms. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.21 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, this has been a useful debate, which has certainly achieved its object, which was to enable Members on all sides to air their views. There have been outstanding contributions, as one would expect. There have also been some rumbustious contributions. I single out the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, an old friend, and also, if he will forgive me, the noble Lord, Lord Borrie.
It would be wrong to attempt to reply to the many speeches in turn, I will simply concentrate on what seem to be the main issues to have emerged. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, suggested that there should have been what he called a "plan B" based on the reform of the office of Lord Chancellor rather than the abolition of that office. I do not see how we could have done that without knowing what the reform was. All we could do, if we were to report by the end of the Session, was to make an assumption—and the only assumption that we could reasonably make was that the Government meant what they said when they said that they were intending to abolish the office of Lord Chancellor. They said that over and over again. The reference to reform of the office of Lord Chancellor does not come from the Government. It comes from the House, when it wrongly gave us terms of reference that did not accord with the Government's intentions.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, repeated the argument that he used before that we should do nothing until the legislation has gone through the House. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, spoke to the same effect. I have already expressed my views on that, and I would expect to find myself in agreement with them when the time comes for that debate, but not today. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, also advanced a new argument, which was that assuming that the report is accepted, we should take it by stages. We should try out a new Speaker without transferring any of the limited powers that we have recommended, and if then we find that it does not work, we could reconsider the matter in a few years time. That would be a mistake.

455
If the office of Lord Chancellor is abolished (it is all on that assumption) we shall have a golden opportunity to make clear at the outset what we want a Speaker to do. We want to make it clear that the Speaker is one of us; we want to make it clear that the Speaker is part of self-regulation, not someone brought in from outside to control us. If we adopt the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, then if in a few years' time we have to think again, because in the view of the Members of the House things are getting worse, we would by that process be acknowledging that self-regulation had failed. That would be a great pity. We must therefore transfer these limited powers now. Although I cannot believe that we shall have to do so, we could if necessary always transfer the powers back to the Leader of the House. There would be no difficulty about that. We are still in command of our destiny.
That brings me to a further point. While I cannot reply to all the points that have been made, I should like to respond to this one regarding the so-called "thin end of the wedge" argument. I accept that this is important, but the fears expressed by many noble Lords on this score, including the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde, Lord Trefgarne, Lord Freeman, Lord Rees, and many others are, I think, exaggerated. I find myself in agreement with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley. Perhaps I may say what a pleasure it was to hear him in a form which I do not recall since he was president of the Cambridge Union. On many occasions he entertained us in that style.
The danger is exaggerated because, unless the House so chooses, I cannot see how, by a process of "creep", the Speaker could gather unto himself powers which we are not going to give him. I say this again: we are in charge of our own destiny. By the same token, the argument that we should not call him the Lord Speaker because that would encourage him to think of himself as a Speaker akin to the Speaker in the House of Commons is almost impossible to accept. No Speaker that we choose would think in that way, but if he did so, we could stop him. We are always in control. The Speaker is our servant, not our master.
I want to add only this: if serious concerns are raised about the fear of creep and a gradual increase in the powers of the Speaker, then there is a simple answer: we should spell out in terms in the Companion what functions are to be transferred. I say again that they are such limited functions that it is extraordinary to me that such a fuss has been made about them.
I shall make a last response concerning the "something to do" point; that is, that we have recommended these changes in order to give the Speaker something to do. That is very definitely not the reason. The Speaker will have more than enough to do if we accept the suggestions made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and many other noble Lords
456
that he should have a new, educational role which the present Lord Chancellor has never had the time to play.
Lord Roper: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. Paragraph 24 of his own report states that:
"Our own view is that the transfer of the Leader's limited functions at Question Time would be in the best interests of the House in securing a suitable candidate to fulfil the role of Speaker".
The committee itself stated that it would find things to do so that we have a good Speaker.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, of course I am anxious that we should have a good Speaker. Once we have one who will fulfil all the other functions—the ambassadorial, educational and pastoral functions, among others—which have been mentioned on all sides of the House, that will be his job. However, he will also undertake his ordinary stint on the Woolsack and during that time he will have these modest functions transferred to him which are currently performed by the Leader of the House.
I find it difficult to understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, having spelt out so well the other functions which the Lord Speaker will perform, should then go on to say that, nevertheless, this is a role which can be performed by the Lord Chairman. But the Lord Chairman already has more than enough to do. If there is any doubt about that, your Lordships should read the evidence of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon.
We have in mind something new for the Speaker and something important for the House, both in educating ourselves and in representing us to the outside world, at home and abroad. With great respect, that job cannot be done by the Lord Chairman of Committees and the Principal Deputy Chairman. We will need a new person—and that person will be the Speaker by whatever name he is called. I have said all that I need to say on that subject.
The "try-your-luck" point that, because the Speaker is there, it will somehow encourage people to get up and shout louder at each other does us a great disservice. I see no reason why the traditional courtesies of the House should not be exercised in the presence of the Speaker in the same way as they are exercised in the presence of the Leader of the House. Indeed, I see some reasons why the courtesies should be exercised to a greater extent.
I emphasise that the Speaker will need the support of the Leaders and the Whips of all parties to ensure that this will work. We shall be taking a very important constitutional step if the office of Lord Chancellor is abolished and I hope very much that somehow we will reach a consensus.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before nine o'clock.

  Ulster-Scots Agency
  Ulster-Scots Agency
  North/South Implementation Bodies: Funding
  North/South Implementation Bodies: Funding
  Law Officers' Advice: Disclosure
  Law Officers' Advice: Disclosure
  Cross-Border Implementation Bodies: Provision of Cars for Chief Executives
  Cross-Border Implementation Bodies: Provision of Cars for Chief Executives
  Special European Union Programmes Body
  Special European Union Programmes Body
  Northern Ireland: Support for Victims of Civil Unrest
  Northern Ireland: Support for Victims of Civil Unrest
  Northern Ireland: Electricity Generation and Supply
  Northern Ireland: Electricity Generation and Supply
  Northern Ireland: Local Government
  Northern Ireland: Local Government
  Service Veterans: Joint Work with US Administration
  Service Veterans: Joint Work with US Administration
  Challenger II Tanks
  Challenger II Tanks
  Gulf War 1990–91: Illness and Research Programme
  Gulf War 1990–91: Illness and Research Programme
  Child Protection
  Child Protection
  Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003: Schools and Colleges
  Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003: Schools and Colleges
  Energy Policy: Ministerial Responsibilities in House of Lords
  Energy Policy: Ministerial Responsibilities in House of Lords
  Nuclear Decommissioning Authority
  Nuclear Decommissioning Authority
  Disabled Young People: John Grooms Inquiry
  Disabled Young People: John Grooms Inquiry
  National Service Framework for Children
  National Service Framework for Children
  Biodiversity: UK Action Plan and Strategy for England
  Biodiversity: UK Action Plan and Strategy for England
  Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture: Countries Ratifying International Treaty
  Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture: Countries Ratifying International Treaty
  Landfill Regulations: Dredging
  Landfill Regulations: Dredging
  Trout and Trout Fisheries: Ligula Tapeworm
  Trout and Trout Fisheries: Ligula Tapeworm

  Investors Scheme
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)
  The investor category of the immigration rules was introduced on 1 October 1994 for investors who wish to come to the UK to invest £1 million. This must include a £750,000 investment in UK government bonds, or in share or loan capital in active and trading UK registered companies as set out within the immigration rules. At present the UK attracts around 26 investors to the UK a year, providing around £26 million of investment in the UK a year.

  As part of the Government's approach to sensible, managed migration where it is in the UK's economic interest, we are revising this category in the light of the experience of other countries who have similar investment routes. The Government recognise that it is important to have effective opportunities for major investors and that the category could be improved to attract more high net worth migrants to come to the UK.

  We have decided to allow overseas investors in future to use loaned money from an authorised financial institution (those regulated by the Financial Services Authority) where the potential investor has a personal net worth of £2 million. In Canada, similar changes were made to their investors category resulting in an increase in investors moving to Canada. The UK hopes to emulate this success.

  Investors whose funds are tied up in illiquid assets and investors who prefer to invest their own money in higher interest investment products will now be able to apply to enter the UK as a result of these changes.

  The revised arrangements for the investors route will be reflected in the Immigration Rules on 13 January 2004.

  Civil Contingency Reaction Forces
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach)
  My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Defence (Mr Adam Ingram) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  Civil Contingency Reaction Forces (CCRFs) achieved full operating capability by 31 December 2003 as planned. Fourteen CCRFs are now available to support the civil authorities if they ask for military assistance.

  The emergency services would lead on the response to any incident and can call on a range of support, which includes the specially trained CCRFs as
  WS 16
  required. A programme of exercises between local CCRFs and emergency services began in 2003 to test how they would work together in an emergency. CCRFs will provide general duties support consistent with the established military aid framework, and the normal Ministry of Defence command structure.

  It is important to remember that CCRFs are just one of the ways in which the Armed Forces can provide support, and that support itself would be part of a much wider response.

  "Their Past Your Future" Collaborative Education Programme
  Lord Bach
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ivor Caplin) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  We are pleased to announce the launch today of a new collaborative education programme called "Their Past Your Future" across the United Kingdom. We are grateful to my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Skills and for Culture, Media and Sport for their enthusiastic support for this project, all the funding for which is being provided by the National Lottery New Opportunities Fund. The programme will give young people at school the opportunity to research and understand the role played by Service veterans and civilian groups in ensuring our national security and survival. It will focus on the important Second World War commemorative events taking place in 2004–05, but is intended to develop into a long-term project recognising the importance of peace and reconciliation as well as conflict. A website will provide information about the programme and ways of linking up veterans and eye-witnesses with schools so that children can draw on those memories and experiences for their own understanding. There will be resources for schools to use in the citizenship and history curricula. This will also stretch out into other subject areas such as English and geography. Opportunities for young people to participate in commemorations at home and abroad are also central to this programme. As part of this last element, there will be an initial research-based competition available with a prize of participation in the D-Day commemorations in June 2004.

  The programme is a good example of collaboration on veterans-related issues across the official and voluntary sectors. It was developed as part of the Veterans Initiative, but the Imperial War Museum will lead this project. Key partners include the Department for Education and Skills, the Confederation of British Service and Ex-Service Organisations, the Royal British Legion, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and Service Museums as well as the Ministry of Defence.

  As we said before, we are particularly pleased that the National Lottery New Opportunities Fund has undertaken to provide funding and that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is also closely involved in the collaborative effort that is

  WS 17
  necessary for a project of this nature. This is an excellent example of lottery money being used for a good cause.

  We hope that projects of this kind will help future generations to remember and understand the
  WS 18
  experiences and sacrifices of veterans of all types and their role in our nation's history. We also urge right honourable and honourable Members to make schools and colleges in their constituencies aware of this project.