Sitting of 15 January 2004

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

    Higher Education
    Mr. Peter Pike: Which five local education authorities had the lowest percentage of students going on to higher education in 2003. [147866]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke): The latest available figures are for students entering in 2002, and they show that Thurrock, Manchester, Hackney, Kingston upon Hull and Knowsley had the lowest proportion of 18-year-olds entering full-time higher education courses.
    Mr. Pike: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but I am sure that he will recognise that, within Lancashire, Burnley has a low take-up of people going on to higher education. We need to encourage our schools to encourage their students to want to go on to higher education. However, does he believe, as I do, that his move to abolish up-front fees and to provide grants and other assistance is likely to remove the barriers that exist for lower-income families in areas such as Burnley?
    Mr. Clarke: I very much agree with my hon. Friend; he is absolutely right. I know that he shares my view, and that of the Government, that improving the schools and basic education in Burnley is an important element in being able to achieve what we all want to do. I was in Lancashire on Tuesday this week and spoke to the leadership of the county. One of the issues discussed was investment in Burnley. We need to focus both on the schools and on the higher education package that is before the House.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: There is a substantial burden of new costs associated with the Government's Higher Education Bill—costs that have increased as a result of some of the concessions that the Secretary of State has been forced to make. Will the costs be met within the higher education budget or by additions to that budget?
    Mr. Clarke: The former.
    Mr. Yeo: If the costs are going to be met within the higher education budget, does that not imply that
    942
    universities will not receive the full benefit of the income generated by top-up fees? If that is the case—and possibly even if it is not the case—is it not clear that the cap of £3,000 to the fees will mean that university funding needs cannot possibly be met by fees charged within the Government's cap? Will they not therefore be announcing quite soon an increase in that cap? Is the Secretary of State aware that any verbal assurance that he tries to give on this matter is undermined by the fact that the whole policy represents a breach of the promise that the Government made to electors less than three years ago?
    Mr. Clarke: I explained very clearly to the House last Thursday the precise safeguards that we have in place to ensure that any increase in the cap would take place only after very full consideration and by a vote of every Member of the House. It is a bit rich for the hon. Gentleman to make these observations when his proposals would take hundreds of millions of pounds out of universities and would reduce by hundreds of thousands the number of places available in universities.
    Jonathan Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although we do well in terms of overall performance for A-levels and degrees, we have one of the worst performances in the OECD for young people staying on in education post-16? If more people are going to go on to higher education, is it not essential that when the educational maintenance allowance programme rolls out in September this year, the learning and skills councils and local education authorities have a real campaign so that we can get the issue on the radar of families who would otherwise ignore the prospect of staying on post-16?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in everything he says. The fact is that the early evidence on the educational maintenance allowance is very positive from the point of view of staying on. I am confident that the rolling out nationally from September that he describes will be very effective. That is the fundamental reason why we have decided to extend and strengthen the higher education grant part of our package that we shall be considering in the Bill later this Session.
    Mr. David Rendel: The Secretary of State has just confirmed what we all know. Students from the poorest parts of the country tend to go least frequently to university. The Prime Minister said yesterday that the new scheme would be
    "a prime example of the modern path to social justice".
    However, the only way in which students from poor backgrounds will benefit financially under the new scheme, as opposed to using their grants to pay off their fees, will be if they go to some sort of second-class university where the fees are actually lower than the top-up fees. They can then use some of their grant for maintenance. Is that not a rather odd way of introducing more social justice? In effect, there will be a bribe for the children of poorer parents to go to second-class universities, thus leaving more places at the more prestigious universities for the children of the toffs.
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman has it completely wrong. I do not know whether he would, for example,

    943
    describe Cambridge university as a second-class university. With his educational background, he may do so. The fact is that the bursaries announced by Cambridge university of £4,000 a year for such students—
    Mr. Rendel: Are they part of the scheme?
    Mr. Clarke: They are entirely part of the scheme. It is as a result of the Office for Fair Access that these bursaries are being announced, and the £4,000 from Cambridge, plus the £1,500 grant, plus the fee remission mean that a student from a working-class background going to Cambridge will, in effect, receive £6,500 to £7,000 a year to deal with their expenses. That is a significant element, and I would not describe that as putting such students at a disadvantage.
    Mr. Adrian Bailey: I represent a constituency that historically has a low take-up of higher education places. While I recognise that certain measures in the Higher Education Bill will remove some of the financial disincentives for potential students, will my right hon. Friend outline the steps being taken to break down some of the cultural and aspirational blocks to students in areas such as mine?
    Mr. Clarke: Higher quality schools is absolutely central to the specialist schools that I identified in particular, as is the education maintenance allowance programme—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) referred—to encourage students financially. The whole structure of apprenticeship skills training leading to foundation degrees and the higher education courses in further education colleges make university courses more attractive. There is a whole package, of which the Bill is just one part, to focus on the issue to which my hon. Friend referred of raising higher education take-up rates in the poorest communities.

    Synthetic Phonics
    Mr. Nick Gibb: If he will make a statement on the use of synthetic phonics in the teaching of reading in primary schools. [147867]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): The National Literacy Strategy has put phonics—synthetic and analytic—right at the heart of literacy teaching in primary schools. That has contributed to the sustained improvement in literacy standards among primary school children.
    Mr. Gibb: The Minister may be aware that at the Kobi Nazrul school in a deprived part of Tower Hamlets, 92 per cent of 11-year-olds achieve level 4 in reading, while a school in a leafy middle-class suburb can achieve only 71 or 72 per cent. Is it the case that one of those schools places much greater emphasis than the other on synthetic phonics in the teaching of reading? Does the Minister accept that if he wants the delivery unit to
    944
    report progress on his stalled target for reading, he must insist that greater emphasis is placed on synthetic phonics in primary schools?
    Mr. Twigg: I also pay tribute to the school to which the hon. Gentleman referred and to others in Tower Hamlets, which have demonstrated the great importance of phonics teaching—including synthetic phonics—in primary schools. Prior to the national literacy strategy, many schools were using synthetic phonics barely or not at all. The take-up is much greater than it used to be. I am considering whether we should conduct additional research to evaluate the different programmes available, to ensure that best practice is shared among primary schools throughout the country.
    Paddy Tipping: Has not the literacy hour—which provides a framework within which teachers can use look-and-say, phonics and synthetic phonics—been an enormous success? Should not the Department identify good practice, examine professional judgment, and promote best practice?
    Mr. Twigg: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Earlier this year, we published "Excellence and Enjoyment" to build on the success of the Government's literacy and numeracy strategies. Some 60,000 additional 11-year-olds are achieving at least level 4 as they leave primary school, which is important progress. As my hon. Friend said, the literacy hour and broader literacy strategy have been vital to the progress made by primary school pupils and teachers.

    Antisocial Behaviour
    Hugh Bayley: What support is available to help schools to deal with antisocial behaviour. [147868]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): Ours is the first Government to put behaviour and attendance at the heart of the school standards agenda. Our programmes include training in consultancy support for all secondary schools, behavioural improvement, enhanced support to tackle bullying, a concerted drive to reduce truancy, the work of Connexions and of the youth services, and positive activities during school holidays for young people judged to be at greatest risk of being involved in crime and antisocial behaviour.
    Hugh Bayley: Does my hon. Friend agree that teachers are in the front line of antisocial behaviour by youngsters—not just as victims but as part of the solution—in working with youngsters who have behavioural problems? Will the Government consider earmarking resources for local education authorities' special educational needs budgets, so that resources can be made available centrally to schools, and provide learning support assistance? Further, does my hon. Friend agree—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. One supplementary question is fine.
    Mr. Lewis: In the Green Paper "Every Child Matters", we said that we sought to bring together all

    945
    the resources that are being used in schools and by external organisations that support schools to ensure that children fulfil their potential. We want to bring the money together more cohesively to ensure that professionals work together to have maximum impact on schools' ability to nurture children's potential. We are currently reviewing that to ensure that we make best use of the vast amount of resources that are being invested in schools and support to schools.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: Last week, I had the privilege of attending the north of England education conference in Belfast, at which several of the Under-Secretary's colleagues were present. I attended a seminar to promote and provide information on the success of the Prince's Trust XL club scheme. The principal who gave the address said that, in 16 years, he had not had to exclude a pupil. Will the Under-Secretary commend the use and involvement of the XL clubs project in schools as a means of increasing achievement and reducing antisocial behaviour?
    Mr. Lewis: I shall support the work of that programme. We have to be imaginative and innovative in using the voluntary sector and community-based organisations to support our desire to ensure that we motivate young people positively, connect them with their local community's activities and support their development as positive citizens. We need to harness all the resources that are available to us in the statutory and voluntary sectors.
    Helen Jones: The measures that the Government have taken so far are welcome, but further to the question that the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) asked, will my hon. Friend consider seriously methods of aiding and encouraging schools to allow young people to undertake useful work in the community that improves their behaviour and breaks down the barriers between the generations? Will he consider making perhaps a small amount of pump-priming money available to enable schools to get such projects off the ground?
    Mr. Lewis: I agree that we need to ensure that we offer young people a personalised learning experience that is about educational attainment and their development as all-round citizens. That is why we are increasingly linking schools, colleges and employers and focusing on enterprise education. It is also why our long-term ambition for reforming education for 14 to 19-year-olds is to build a curriculum around the needs of each young person. It should consider not only educational content but their community activities.

    School Funding (North Yorkshire)
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What representations he has received on school funding in (a) North Yorkshire and (b) York for 2004–05. [147869]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): We have received few recent representations about school funding in North Yorkshire and York for 2004–05. On 29 October, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced proposals to restore
    946
    stability and certainty to school funding. In 2004–05 all authorities will have an increase in their school formula spending share of at least 5 per cent. per pupil. North Yorkshire's increase is 6 per cent. and York's is 6.8 per cent.
    Miss McIntosh: My pile of papers shows the number of representations that I have received from schools in my area, which covers North Yorkshire and the city of York. The Minister's school report will read: "He must try harder." The procedures are complex, bureaucratic and inflexible. There will be more staff redundancies this year and it is as difficult as ever to get money for the schools building programme. What will the Minister do about it?
    Mr. Miliband: I look forward to receiving representations, but the hon. Lady should give credit where it is due. My hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) has passed on a representation to me from the director of education in York. He says:
    "This year, the FSS for schools in York was significantly higher than last year and…amongst the best in the country."
    He continues that
    "the DfES has made huge efforts to address the problems…and should be congratulated on what has been achieved."
    Mr. John Grogan: Does my hon. Friend also know that the widely respected director of education in North Yorkshire has written to all North Yorkshire Members of Parliament to say that, in many ways, the picture for school spending is better than for many years? Will he do everything possible to sustain the increase in spending that has led to 300 extra teachers in North Yorkshire in the past five years?
    Mr. Miliband: I am sure that the letter also pointed out that there has been an increase of 47.9 per cent. in funding for pupils in North Yorkshire under the Government, in contrast to the cuts that occurred when the Conservative party was in power.

    University Funding
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: What representations he has received on the funding requirements of universities in 2004–05. [147870]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke): I have received numerous representations from universities on a number of matters relating to the funding of higher education, both in formal correspondence and in meetings with vice-chancellors and others from the higher education sector.
    Mr. Dalyell: Even if the English universities receive more funding as a consequence of a new fee regime, will not most of that be used up in supporting teaching? What does the Secretary of State propose to do about the funding of research in the UK?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The bulk of the extra income will be used, and is intended to be used, to support teaching and to increase the quality of undergraduate education in universities. However, as he will know, the increase in research funding through the comprehensive spending review has been the most

    947
    substantial in 25 years, and that will continue. I accept my hon. Friend's point that research funding is vital for the success of universities, and we certainly intend to continue to support that in every way possible.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: The Secretary of State will agree that universities have been underfunded for some time. What discussions has he had with his colleagues in Northern Ireland about the impact of his policies there, bearing in mind that although Cambridge and a few other universities might be able to offer some bursaries, other universities are not in such a position, and their students could be worse off?
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which I have discussed with my ministerial colleagues responsible for education in Northern Ireland. I also took the opportunity to discuss that issue, and a variety of others, with the vice-chancellor of Queen's university when I was in Belfast for the meeting of the Association of Commonwealth Universities last September. We are discussing that, and we acknowledge the cross-border issues implied in the hon. Gentleman's question. I make an open offer to him today: I am happy to discuss with him and his colleagues their concerns over how we can take our approach forward.
    Mr. David Chaytor: In my constituency, 18 per cent. of the population are university graduates. Does my right hon. Friend find it strange that some people find it quite acceptable that the other 82 per cent. have had to pay variable fees for every bit of education and training that they have had since they were 18, but consider that variable fees are unacceptable for the most privileged, that 18 per cent. who are graduates?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree—that is one of the more surprising aspects of this debate. The fact is that about 50 per cent. of students at our universities, including part-time, postgraduate and overseas students, already pay variable fees in precisely the way that my hon. Friend suggests. Moreover, with regard to skills training in the 16 to 19 age group, many people themselves, or their employers, pay for the education and training that they receive. I regard our proposals as creating a rational approach to that variety, and enabling universities precisely to focus on attracting students from the communities that he wants to encourage, as do I.

    Top-up Fees
    Mr. David Amess: What recent representations he has received on top-up fees. [147871]
    The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education (Alan Johnson): My Department has continued to receive correspondence on issues relating to variable fees from a range of organisations and individuals. In addition, I have had meetings with a number of MPs, vice-chancellors and representatives of interested groups to discuss and clarify the proposals set out in the Higher Education Bill. We have listened to
    948
    concerns and taken account of them in the proposed student support package that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 8 January.
    Mr. Amess: How will the Minister reply to those people who have written to him to remind him that the Labour party manifesto said that the Government would not introduce top-up fees and had legislated to prevent them? How has he replied to constituents who have reminded him that, according to Barclays bank, under this rotten Government students will face debts of more than £33,000 by 2010?
    Alan Johnson: On the first question, we will not introduce variable fees until after the next general election. Let me just remind the hon. Gentleman of the days, which are becoming increasingly distant, when his party was in government. Government is about looking at serious problems, which we should address, not duck. I make no apology whatever for realising that the university sector requires additional funding—and extremely soon—for the economic success of this country.
    On the second question, I would patiently remind anyone who wrote to me or to any Member of the House saying that the Government's proposals mean a £33,000 debt that the biggest threat to students going on to university is well-meaning people plucking figures out of the air for what student debt will be. I remind those people that the average debt recorded by the student income and expenditure survey, which the National Union of Students has more to do with than we have, is £8,666—not£30,000, not £3,000, not£25,000.
    David Taylor: Why cannot we be frank about what the debate before us involves? The current fees produce £450 million out of a £9 billion budget—about 5 per cent. The debate is not about the small amounts of extra finance, which would be rather slow to come, or the expansion of opportunities for working-class students; it is about marketisation. Why cannot we be frank about that?
    Alan Johnson: Because it is not about marketisation—it is about getting rid of up-front fees, reintroducing a maintenance grant of £1,500 and making it easier for graduates to repay not just any fee, but their loans. The amount that they will pay back goes down substantially under our proposals. [Interruption.] It goes down £18,000 a year—from £13.85 a week to £5.90. That is the reality of our proposals.
    In relation to marketisation, we are bringing in an extra £1 billion on top of £800 million from fees and a £3 billion investment from the taxpayer—a 34 per cent. increase since 1997. We are doing that because we read very closely the report of the Dearing national committee of inquiry, which said that if we do not go down this route we will never properly fund our university sector.
    Mr. Andrew Turner: I do not think that any of us, on this side of the House at least, is surprised that the Government are breaking their promise. What we would like explained is why they made the promise in the first place.
    Alan Johnson: That is a change of tack. The hon. Gentleman is a respected member of the Education and

    949
    Skills Committee, which to a large extent goes along with our proposals and certainly supports graduate contributions. There was an interesting article in The Sunday Times by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Answer!
    Alan Johnson: This is the answer, if the hon. Lady cares to wait.
    My right hon. Friend wrote an article, as well as the manifesto commitment, and he pointed out the terms of the debate in 1997 and 1998, following the Dearing report. Top-up fees meant that the Government set a fee and universities were allowed to top them up to whatever level they liked. I was pleased that my right hon. Friend reminded us of the true terminology that we were debating, and we will not allow that to happen. We did not allow it in 1998 and we will not allow it now. If anything, the proposal that £3,000 or less can be charged is top down rather than top up.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the removal of the up-front element in the proposal before us will have a significant impact to the benefit of the students coming from poorer families?
    Alan Johnson: That is a crucial point. Even though 40 per cent. of students did not have to pay that fee, there was the impression in youngsters' minds that if they want to go to university it will cost them or their parents money up front. The other interesting point is that from the student income and expenditure survey we now know that 26 per cent. of students are themselves paying an average of £700 towards that up-front fee. In fact, abolition and a move to an income-contingent repayment system after they have graduated is not only more helpful for those applying to university, but will help students to manage the cost of being at university.
    Mr. George Osborne: The Minister referred in his opening answer to meetings with Members of the House. How many of those meetings were held at the suggestion of Lords Commissioners to the Treasury—in other words, Government Whips?
    Alan Johnson: Quite a few would be the answer to that. That in no way suggests, however, that those individual Members whom I met were not delighted and happy to meet me.

    School Sport
    Tony Cunningham: What steps he is taking to improve links between schools and sports clubs. [147872]
    The Minister for Children (Margaret Hodge): From parliamentary sports to schools sports, Mr. Speaker, we are implementing a range of measures to improve the links between schools and sports clubs. With an investment of more than £1 billion, we are enhancing sports facilities, creating 400 specialist sports colleges, funding partnerships between schools to increase
    950
    sporting opportunities for children, and making money available to encourage links between schools and sports clubs.
    Tony Cunningham: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. To put this subject in context, about 20 per cent. of school leavers in this country continue their sport with a sports club; in France, that figure is about 70 per cent. I am therefore delighted about the investment. Will she talk to colleagues in other Departments—the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Home Office and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister—so that we can have a co-ordinated approach to this matter?
    Margaret Hodge: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that he is doing to encourage not just sports in schools but young people to carry on their sporting activity beyond school. I assure him that in this area of policy, as in many others, we work extremely closely not just with colleagues in DCMS but with colleagues in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Home Office.
    Mr. Michael Jack: In the light of the Minister's encouraging reply, will she consider the application made by St. Bede's high school in my constituency for a specialists sports facility? It is the only high school of its type without a sports facility and it wishes to link with local sporting clubs, thus achieving the Minister's objective. Will she assure me that she will consider carefully that application, which is supported by the county council and is much needed?
    Margaret Hodge: I am delighted to note the right hon. Gentleman's support for our specialist schools programme. I hope that he acknowledges, as we do, that they raise achievement among children—[Interruption.] In response to the comment made from a sedentary position, the Conservatives may have had the spark of an idea, but we provided the funds that they now intend to cut.
    Mr. Andy Reed: I am sure that my right hon. Friend has had the opportunity to read the Adjournment debate on grass roots sports that we had on Tuesday. She will realise that to increase mass participation right across the age range, especially as people get older, the school-club link is crucial as there is a drop-off rate, particularly among girls and women. Will she work closely with the DCMS and others to ensure that as well as having specialist sports colleges and sports co-ordinators, we get coaches into schools through those links, possibly even in after-school hours? We must make sure that we use the facilities in schools and make a real effort to drive up the participation rate.
    Margaret Hodge: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the Adjournment debate the other night, and I agree entirely that creating those school-club links, across the range of sports, is crucial. Not only do I hope that the school-club links project in which we are investing £4.5 million will support that, but that our extended schools programme, in which we hope to open up schools to provide extra-curricular activities, will

    951
    encourage more coaches from clubs to work with children and young people to develop their sports competences.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: In encouraging sports pros to come into schools, to try to alleviate the problem about which we are all worried—obesity in our youngsters—and to get those young people off their couches and on to sports fields and facilities, will the Minister examine carefully the problem of the long school summer holidays? In terms of opening up those sports facilities, the schools tell us that part of the problem is insurance: they are afraid that youngsters will get injured while using the facilities. Will she consider opening those facilities this summer for all our youngsters?
    Margaret Hodge: I am delighted that there is cross-party agreement on this matter. I have always believed—and I imagine from what the hon. Gentleman said that he agrees—that schools and their facilities are a most precious asset in our communities and are valued by everybody. For them to be closed for much of the day and much of the year is a terrible waste of a valuable asset. Any step that we can take to open them up so that they can he used not just by the school community but by the wider community must be of benefit to all.

    Education Maintenance Grants
    Mr. Harry Barnes: What assessment he has made of the impact of education maintenance grants on post-16 participation. [147873]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): In the evaluated pilots, the number of 16-year-olds participating in full-time education increased by 5.9 percentage points. That represents a significant increase, and reinforces the importance of extending education maintenance allowances to 16-year-olds in all parts of England from this September.
    Mr. Barnes: I welcome that reply—and I do not normally say that.
    I recognise that the scheme must be phased in, with pilot schemes followed by participation by 16-year-olds. Some students in the second year of their national vocational qualifications courses are not eligible, but learner support funds provide one-off grants for the purchase of books and equipment. Could provision be extended so that people do not miss out entirely during their later years of study?
    Mr. Lewis: One of the proposals in the skills strategy that we launched in the summer is to allow young people in full-time education beyond the age of 19 access to maintenance grants. That will give them a new opportunity. However, we will also try to ensure that all learner support funds are used to support young people, raise their aspirations and enable them to stay in education—especially those from communities in which that is not currently the norm.
    Mr. Graham Brady: Given that those who stay in education after the age of 16 earn more in later life than those who do not, would it not be consistent with the Government's other policies for them to charge fees for their education rather than giving them money?
    Mr. Lewis: No, it most certainly would not. Let us consider the logical conclusion of the Conservatives' higher education policy. They would tell 16-year-olds "Take an education maintenance allowance, but you cannot have a university place." The Conservatives would reduce the number of places significantly, and which young people would lose out? Those who were eligible for the allowances.
    Nothing changes in terms of the dividing line between the Government and the Conservatives. We want everyone to have equality of opportunity.
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: I welcome the rolling out of maintenance allowances across the country to regions such as mine, but will the Minister ensure that his AimHigher programme continues to be funded? I have seen it operating in schools in my constituency, encouraging young people in years 9 and 10 who would otherwise not even have thought of going to university to begin planning their school careers with that in mind.
    Mr. Lewis: I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue that programme, which has been very successful in persuading young people that higher education is a serious option when it has not been on their radar screens hitherto. The combination of our investment in Sure Start, our school standards agenda, the work of the Connexions service and our proposed reforms of education for 14 to 19-year-olds is helping young people to fulfil their potential in a way that has not been possible before.
    Mr. Mark Simmonds: With the maintenance allowance, the Government have established the principle of using taxpayers' money to encourage students to go on learning, thus gaining wider career opportunities and greater earning potential. Can the Minister explain how that policy is consistent with that of variable tuition fees, which is predicated on substantial student debt, with students having to repay money because of the possibility of those wider career opportunities and greater earning potential?
    Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman has clearly taken advantage of the literacy programme, but not of the numeracy programme. As a consequence of the proposals presented by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last week, the reintroduction of a maintenance grant to support young people while they are undertaking higher education is entirely consistent with education maintenance allowances. If the Higher Education Bill were voted down, what the Conservatives would be voting for would be no maintenance grants and the continuation of up-front fees.
    Valerie Davey: I welcome the maintenance allowances that reached Bristol in the roll-out programme this September. Does the Minister agree that such direct funding on an income-related basis encourages more young people from low-income families to consider going to university?
    Mr. Lewis: I agree entirely. The important thing about increasing access to university is enabling far more young people to gain the necessary qualifications by the age of 18 and getting them to believe that university is a serious option. That is how we will widen participation and genuinely ensure that higher education is available to all who want and are able to pursue it in our country.

    School Budgets
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: When he next expects to meet representatives of local education authorities from Norfolk and Suffolk to discuss school budgets for the next financial year. [147874]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State meets representatives from Norfolk on a regular basis. This year's package of funding includes a targeted transitional grant made available to local authorities, which would otherwise have the smallest increases in support for education over this year and next. Norfolk is eligible for £5.3 million and Suffolk for £3.1 million.
    Mr. Bellingham: Has the Minister had a chance to see the recent article by Steve Downes, the education correspondent of the Eastern Daily Press, who flagged up the possibility of £400 million being necessary to repair and upgrade Norfolk schools, given that one in nine classrooms in the county is below the accepted standard? He will also be aware that I am very concerned about the reorganisation in the Hunstanton area, which will require an upgrade. We are very grateful that Norfolk will benefit from a substantial private finance initiative project, but what is our share of "Building schools for the future" likely to be?
    Mr. Miliband: I appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman asked that question. I follow Steve Downes's articles in the Eastern Daily Press carefully—especially when the hon. Gentleman shows them to me just before Question Time. I am glad that he referred to the increased capital funding for Norfolk. The "Building schools for the future" programme is designed to enable every local education authority in the country to modernise the secondary school estate over the next 10 to 15 years. The funds will be distributed on the basis of need, the power of the educational vision to deliver on improved standards, and the capacity of the LEA to deliver the programme. We are waiting for the bids to come in, and the moneys will be allocated on that basis.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: May I ask my hon. Friend not to listen to what the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) said about
    954
    school buildings in his county? I taught in Norfolk for 10 years before entering the House in 1997. I can tell my hon. Friend that many of the schools then were rotten and had leaking roofs; that many of the children were taught in sheds called "mobile classrooms", except they never moved; that the Tory county council was proud of how little it spent on education under a Tory Government; and that there has been huge extra investment since 1997 in Norfolk and Suffolk. The hon. Gentleman's point was completely wrong, and the remaining defective buildings are remnants from the dark days of the Tory era.
    Mr. Miliband: I am glad that my non-aggression pact with the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) can now be abandoned and that I can make it absolutely clear that capital funding, which was a mere £4.9 million for the whole of Norfolk in 1996–97, is now £39.7 million. That puts right the dark days that were left to us.
    Mr. Mark Hoban: Is the Minister confident that the transitional target money to which he referred in his answer will help all the schools that set either a deficit budget or used reserves or money for capital projects to balance the books this year, or will we hear more from schools in East Anglia about teachers being laid off and staff being cut?
    Mr. Miliband: What we will hear more of is the Conservative lead spokesman on education in Norfolk county council, who says that the money to which the hon. Gentleman referred will replace the funding that was missing last year. In fact, he went on:
    "We have been working hard to persuade the Government that Norfolk needs a better overall settlement, and that is what we appear to have achieved."

    Russell Group Universities
    Mr. Michael Connarty: What percentage of young people from England and Wales gained entrance to courses at the Russell Group of universities in 2003.[147875]
    Mr. Graham Allen: Come in No. 10.
    The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education (Alan Johnson): Your time is up. [Laughter.]
    In 2003, 6 per cent. of the 18-year-old population gained entry to full-time undergraduate courses in Russell Group universities. We want the best young people, whatever their social background, to apply to the top universities and we are encouraging all universities to reach out and find talented young people from all backgrounds who have the potential to benefit from higher education.
    Mr. Connarty: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. He knows that I told his Parliamentary Private Secretary that I have been speaking to vice-chancellors from Russell Group universities—though not Oxford or Cambridge, I might add. They told me

    955
    that they would charge£3,000 for every course at their universities and also told me that they would support a fixed universal graduate repayment scheme, if it were proposed, but that they had been told that they must support the Government's variable scheme or get nothing. Surely my right hon. Friend sees the merit in further exploring a fixed graduate repayment scheme, which would stop misleading students about what it would cost them to attend university courses and stop the Government bullying the universities. It might even save the seats of several Labour Members at the next election.
    Alan Johnson: I should tell my hon. Friend, who is a friend of long standing, that I simply do not understand that argument. According to it, were we to fix the fee at £2,500—the accepted figure in terms of bringing in the same amount of revenue—all our problems would dissolve overnight. The idea is that poorer youngsters would be put off by £3,000, but not by £2,500. The simple fact is that none of the Russell Group universities will be able to charge anything above £1,125, which is the current standard fee, unless they satisfy the access regulator that they are doing everything they possibly can to encourage youngsters from non-traditional backgrounds—to use the jargon—to come to their university. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, Cambridge has already responded with an incredible £4,000 per year grant for youngsters whose families have an income of up to £31,000 a year. That is on top of the £2,700 we are providing centrally.
    This is an opportunity at last to close the social class gap that actually widened when higher education was free, through generous maintenance grants. So I do not understand the philosophy behind the fixed versus variable argument.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: If we are to accept the Government's premise that graduates, particularly from prestigious universities, should pay back more to society for their university education, why should that principle apply only to new graduates? Why should it not also apply to former, high-earning graduates, particularly those earning more than £100,000 a year? Almost 90 per cent. of such high-earners are graduates, who acquired their degrees in the days when they were more exclusive and more financially remunerative.
    Alan Johnson: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Dearing report—a national committee of inquiry that was comprehensive, greatly appreciated at the time, and supported by Members on both sides of the House. Dearing set out six arguments as to why a graduate contribution scheme, which is what we are suggesting, is superior to a graduate tax, not least because he foresaw the difficulty of applying legislation retrospectively. However, he did point out that we need a culture in which individuals who have benefited from higher education are more willing to put money back in, in endowments and other forms. So I invite any Member of this House who feels a sense of guilt at not having paid enough for their university education to send their former university money. That would be very much appreciated.

    School Insurance
    Colin Burgon: What support he gives to local education authorities which face a shortfall in insurance payments to cover the cost of the replacement of school buildings after fire damage. [147876]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): Authorities and schools are expected to take out adequate insurance for their school buildings, in accordance with good practice. Significant capital resources are allocated by formula to all authorities, enabling them to respond to the needs of their schools according to their priorities, including the covering of emergencies. Therefore, we generally do not provide exceptional capital support to local authorities to meet the costs of fire damage.
    Colin Burgon: My question comes about as a result of the experiences of Brigshaw high school, which is in my constituency. At Christmas, the gymnasium block burned down—I am glad to say that it was an accident—but in April 2000 virtually the entire school burned down. The Government and Leeds city council came together efficiently to ensure that the building work, costing some £8 million, went ahead. Under the leadership of their head teacher, Peter Laurence, the staff responded brilliantly to the crisis. Will the Minister assure me that he will give the school the same help and support through this current difficult period?
    Mr. Twigg: I am aware of the tragic circumstances at Brigshaw high school that my hon. Friend describes. I am certainly happy to give him a commitment that we will work with Education Leeds to ensure that the school can be rebuilt as soon as possible; I know that considerable damage has been caused on this occasion. Our preference is very much that these matters be dealt with at local level. We have increased fivefold the availability of capital funds to local authorities in the past six years. We hope that, in the first place, Education Leeds will work closely with the school and with my hon. Friend to bring about its rebuilding.
    Mr. Richard Bacon: While we are on the subject of support to local education authorities, given that an LEA thinks that it is doing well if 87 per cent. of its budget is passed on to schools and only 13 per cent. kept back, which in the case of Norfolk still means that more than £50 million is kept back—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has wasted a supplementary; the question is about insurance.
    Dr. Brian Iddon: In view of the huge chaos caused by fires in schools and especially in the light of the fact that the cost of fitting sprinklers and other fire protection systems can be greatly offset against the reduction in insurance premiums, should we not make it mandatory, or give strong encouragement, for all schools, in new build and in retrospect, to fit sprinkler systems?
    Mr. Twigg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I give him an undertaking that I shall explore what the Department can do to support such common-sense solutions.

  The Solicitor-General was asked—
  SOLICITOR-GENERAL

    Professor Sir Roy Meadow
    Mr. George Osborne: If she will review family court cases that involved evidence from Professor Sir Roy Meadow. [147843]
    The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman): I have met my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children to discuss family law cases involving evidence from Sir Roy Meadow. We await the written judgment of the Court of Appeal in the Angela Cannings case, which we expect within a fortnight, and when we receive that judgment I shall tell the House what action we shall take on criminal cases, and my right hon. Friend will tell the House what action she will take on family cases, that involved evidence from Sir Roy Meadow.
    Mr. Osborne: Professor Meadow's flawed evidence was instrumental in two massive miscarriages of justice, in the case of my constituent, Sally Clark, and in the Angela Cannings case, and was also instrumental in the collapse of the conviction of Trupti Patel. All those cases aroused massive public interest. Will the Solicitor-General confirm that she has still not actually started to review criminal cases where Professor Meadow's evidence was instrumental, and will she also confirm, perhaps on behalf of the Minister for Children, that there has as yet been no attempt to review all the family court cases? In those cases, too, there may have been great miscarriages of justice—children may have been taken away from parents and families broken apart—because of the same kind of evidence from Professor Meadow.
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman is right to identify different cases, different issues in different cases and different jurisdictions—criminal and family. I recognise both his interest in such cases and also that of other hon. Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) with whom I know he has discussed the matter.
    I shall try not to take too long to reply, Mr. Speaker, so stop me when I run over my time—[Interruption.] These are quite difficult and complex issues and the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) has raised a very important point. In the case of Sally Clark, she was convicted and freed on appeal, and when the Court of Appeal gave its written judgment on that case it said that its concern was about Dr. Williams. The Attorney-General then set up an interdepartmental review of all criminal cases where the mother is still in prison, where the offence was of killing the child and where Dr. Williams's evidence was material. We have started that review and hon. Members might think that it would be an easy process, but in fact it is quite difficult. In many cases where Dr. Williams gave evidence that would have been crucial to the conviction we are not even sure whether it related to a man or a woman, because there is no indication of the Christian name. In some cases, there might have been other evidence that was crucial, rather
    958
    than that of Dr. Williams. I can say only that I am liaising closely with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children about the family jurisdiction and we are already at work on the issues in the criminal jurisdiction. We are not sitting around while miscarriages of justices are not dealt with.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Sir Roy Meadow cases throw up disturbing indications that expert witnesses are not always as expert as they should be? Does she also agree that witnesses who give expert advice to the courts should be registered with the Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners?
    The Solicitor-General: The Home Office has responsibility for forensic pathology, which is often at issue in cases such as this. In the Angela Cannings case, the Court of Appeal gave a verbal decision to free her, and made it clear that it was concerned about expert witnesses. We expect the court's written judgment shortly, but at present we do not know whether it will open up the whole issue of expert evidence in cases that otherwise might have been regarded as involving sudden infant death syndrome, or whether it will keep its conclusions in respect of Sir Roy Meadow. How wide our action is will depend on the court's findings, but we are working with the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Home Office and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children to ensure that no stone is left unturned in this matter. I shall be happy to meet the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) and any other colleagues to keep them abreast of progress in these very important cases.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: I am pleased to hear what the Solicitor-General has to say about this matter, but I want to press her a little further. I appreciate that her Department's responsibility in respect of family court cases is very different from its responsibility in respect of criminal cases. Nevertheless, the view taken by the Attorney-General and the right hon. and learned Lady of what has happened in criminal cases is likely to have a marked impact on whether people who have had their children taken away can have their cases reviewed in the family court. It will also affect the amount of public aid that might be made available to those people in order to have their cases re-examined. Will the right hon. and learned Lady bear those points in mind and ensure that the advice of the Law Officers is given to the Minister for Children and to the Lord Chancellor's Department if it is concluded that there are serious flaws in the expert evidence that has been advanced?
    The Solicitor-General: It is already clear that serious flaws exist, and that is why we are taking the action that we are taking. I have met my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children already, and the Attorney-General is in correspondence with her. I do not want to trespass on my right hon. Friend's jurisdiction in this matter, but a particular difficulty exists: that is, that many cases will not have come to court, as the expert evidence and advice might have been that a person did not stand a cat in hell's chance because the evidence was overwhelming. The advice might also be that giving up

    959
    one child for adoption might mean that the person involved could keep her other children. The matter might seem straightforward, but it is very difficult to track back in these cases. However, I assure the House that all efforts will be made, across both the criminal and civil jurisdictions, and that I shall keep hon. Members informed.

    Fraud
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: What plans she has to improve ways in which firms can be protected from fraud. [147844]
    The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman): The Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office are engaged in the work across government of the criminal justice agencies to improve the protection of firms against fraud.
    Mr. Bellingham: The Solicitor-General and I have corresponded on this matter. I am grateful to her for taking seriously the issue of fraud suffered by small firms, but more needs to be done. Does she agree that it would make sense if the SFO's main advisory panel contained a small firms representative? I appreciate that she may not know the exact answer, but can she tell the House how many stop now orders have been issued by the Office of Fair Trading?
    The Solicitor-General: I shall have to write to the hon. Gentleman with a response to his question about the OFT. I shall consider including a small business representative on the SFO advisory panel, but I agree that more needs to be done to protect businesses, both large and small, against fraud. That is a matter of ensuring that Government Departments and agencies work together. We intend to make sure that that happens, but we must also work with business to ensure that everything possible is done to advise and inform firms about how to protect themselves against fraud. We are also working with the Law Society and the professional accountancy organisations, and we are working internationally as well. We aim to toughen up on the proceeds of crime so that fraudsters do not think that they can commit a crime and live off the proceeds.
    Mr. Mark Todd: I wish to draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend to a case in my constituency, in which a small firm was able to produce what I thought was very substantial evidence of fraud by a company in Hampshire. My conversations with the local police in Hampshire have revealed that the main difficulty about pursuing the matter was the lack of available resources, and also that dealing with small-business fraud is given a relatively low priority in local police forces. Is not that a critical part of this picture?
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of the amount of resources that the tackling of
    960
    fraud is able to command. Fraud is not just a technical, victimless crime—there are real casualties along the way in terms of people's jobs, finances and, often, homes. I ask my hon. Friend to bring the case to my attention and I shall look into it.

    Rasul et al v. Bush
    Mr. David Heath: What discussions the Attorney-General has had with the Attorney-General of the United States on the subject of the amicus brief prepared on behalf of parliamentarians in the matter of Rasul et al v. Bush. [147845]
    The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman): The Attorney-General has not discussed the proposed amicus brief in the case of Rasul et al v. Bush as part of his discussions with the US authorities about the UK detainees in Guanatamo Bay.
    Mr. Heath: That is very disappointing, particularly given that it has been supported by four former Law Lords, a former Master of the Rolls and 85 right hon. and hon. Members of this House, including three former Cabinet Ministers and, indeed, the right hon. and learned Lady's predecessor. One wonders why the Government have not involved themselves in some action on behalf of British citizens who are incorrectly imprisoned.
    Can the Solicitor-General update the House on the negotiations that the Attorney-General has entered into? We heard from Ambassador Pierre-Richard Prosper a week ago that some movement was imminent, but that now seems premature, and the prospects are rather disappointing. Will she enlighten us as to when these people will either face due process or be released?
    The Solicitor-General: The Attorney-General and I are being kept informed about the proposed amicus that is being prepared by the peers and hon. Members, including my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston), to whom the hon. Gentleman referred.
    As far as we are concerned, I refer the hon. Gentleman to what the Prime Minister said to this House on 7 January:
    "I hope that we will shortly be able to tell the House how the issue will be handled".—[Official Report, 7 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 253.]
    He went further on 11 January, saying:
    "I think it will be resolved one way or another in the next few weeks".
    The timeframe of the Supreme Court is far beyond that, so we have a nearer focus on the matter. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Prime Minister said that the timeframe is within "the next few weeks".

Business of the House
12.32 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 19 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Civil Contingencies Bill.
TUESDAY 20 JANUARY—Debate on attendance and behaviour in schools on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
WEDNESDAY 21 JANUARY—Opposition Day [3rd Allotted Day]. There will be a debate entitled "Failure of the Government to introduce a Civil Service Bill" followed by a debate entitled "Failure of the Government to address the West Lothian question".
Both debates arise on an Opposition motion.
I welcome the move by the official Opposition to return to the traditional practice of announcing the subject of their debates. That advance notice will assist all Members in planning their work for the week ahead. I hope that this sets the pattern for the future.
THURSDAY 22 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill.
The provisional business for the following week will be:
MONDAY 26 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Fire and Rescue Services Bill.
TUESDAY 27 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Higher Education Bill.
WEDNESDAY 28 JANUARY—Opposition Day [4th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats. Subject to be announced.
THURSDAY 29 JANUARY—Motion on Members' estimate matters.
FRIDAY 30 JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for the remainder of January will be:
THURSDAY 22 JANUARY—A debate on the Report from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on the illegal drugs trade and drug culture in Northern Ireland.
THURSDAY 29 JANUARY—A debate on "Afghanistan: the development challenge".
During the business statement last Thursday, hon. Members inquired about the publication of the Hutton report. Although the publication of the report is for Lord Hutton, not for the Government, I did commit to draw Lord Hutton's attention to the point that was raised by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). Lord Hutton has informed me that when he announces the date for the publication of his report, he will also announce the arrangements for publication. Lord Hutton has also informed me that he has taken note of the point raised by the hon. Member for North Cornwall in relation to the publication of his report. I
962
have committed to keeping the House as informed as possible on this issue, and I hope that hon. Members are reassured by this statement.
Mr. Heald: May I thank the Leader of the House for his comments about prior notice on Opposition days? He should not, however, hold his breath because from time to time we will want to be topical.
May I ask the Leader of the House about the failure by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to respond to this week's Opposition debate on post offices? He will know that I raised a point of order at the time, but does he agree that whenever possible the Secretary of State should respond to a debate moved by the shadow Secretary of State? Will he reassure us that there has not been a change in the Government's practice? We understand that from time to time the Secretary of State may not be able to attend a debate, but an explanation should be given—it should be good, too.
The Leader of the House will remember that last week he was asked detailed questions about the Hutton report, including a question about the structure of the debate, and that he said that he would give the matter further thought. Can he tell us, first, whether the Prime Minister will open the debate and, secondly, whether the Defence Secretary will make the winding-up speech? Will there be a substantive motion on Lord Hutton's recommendations and an opportunity for the House to vote on the matter?
Does the Leader of the House understand the widespread frustration in the House that the Prime Minister feels able to go on the Frost show and answer questions about authorising the release of Dr. Kelly's name, whereas when he is asked questions in the House he hides behind the need to wait for the report's publication? [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) says that that is "dodging". Whatever it is, it is not satisfactory.
Finally, the Leader of the House will know that during this week's Opposition day debate on shortages of equipment for the armed forces in Iraq, the shadow Secretary of State for Defence called on the Defence Secretary to resign. The shadow Secretary of State for Defence cited the case of Sergeant Roberts, who was shot in the chest and would have survived had he not been ordered to hand over his body armour to other troops because of shortages. Since that debate, Sergeant Roberts's taped diaries have been released. In them, he said to his wife:
"We are going to war without the correct equipment."
Can we expect a personal statement on the matter from the Secretary of State for Defence in the next week?
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman's first point was that we should not hold our breath about Opposition days. I understand his desire to call topical debates, which is the Opposition's right, but he must understand Members' rights. When Members plan their diaries, they know the Government business and topics for debate on a particular day. He is denying Members the opportunity to prepare speeches and to decide whether they want to speak. The practice has been adopted in

963
previous years by both parties when in opposition. I understand his desire to be topical, but I hope that he will respect Members' rights.
On the post offices debate, I understand that a member of the shadow Cabinet was not present, so it was not automatically the case that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry should have been present.
On the Hutton report, the hon. Gentleman says that the Prime Minister appears on the Frost programme but does not come before the House. The Prime Minister comes before the House every week for Prime Minister's questions, and he has been asked questions about that matter. He has made himself more accountable to the House than any previous Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman presumably did not hear what was said at yesterday's Prime Minister's questions, because it was not in his interests to listen. The Prime Minister said:
"I have absolutely no intention of doing anything other than leading the Government's case on this issue."—[0fficial Report, 14 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 809.]
That has been the position since I announced that the Prime Minister would make a statement to the House on the day that the Hutton report is published—I told the hon. Gentleman that weeks ago.
Mr. Heald: What about the debate?
Mr. Hain: The arrangements for the debate will be announced in the usual way, nearer the time and when the report has been published—there is nothing unusual about that. Since the hon. Gentleman repeatedly raises the matter, let me tell him that there is something distasteful about him and the Leader of the Opposition trying to second-guess a judge and his independent report. Perhaps it would be more judicious for the Leader of the Opposition to show a little more self-restraint and stop trying to manipulate the judgment of an independent judge in advance of the publication of his report.
On the equipment situation in Iraq, we obviously all sympathise with the family of Sergeant Roberts, especially Mrs. Roberts. However, I do not think that anyone would disagree—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not—that all our British soldiers fought with extreme efficiency in the war to depose Saddam Hussein, and that they performed valiantly and deserve praise from all of us.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: I thank the Leader of the House for reporting back on the question posed last week by my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on the Hutton inquiry. We appreciate that feedback and look forward to further feedback as the situation unfolds.
May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the fact that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has not once come to the House in the past 12 months to make a statement on environmental matters? Perhaps that is because she is at a loss to report anything that her Department has done on such matters. May I draw his attention to the report on climate change that was published last week by Leeds university, in the name of Professor Chris Thomas? It
964
reports that over the next 50 years, we can expect one quarter of the land animal and plant species on the planet to be destroyed and thus to become extinct as a result of climate change. Will he tell the Secretary of State that there are important reasons why she should come to the House to give an account of what her Department is—or, perhaps, is not—doing?
Will the Leader of the House consider the situation in respect of the report by Judge Peter Cory on the Pat Finucane and Rosemary Nelson deaths? The report was presented to the United Kingdom and Irish Governments in October 2003, and it was stated that it would be published as soon as possible. The families of the bereaved and, indeed, the House are still waiting. Can he say when the report will be published and tell us the reason for the delay? Will he ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to come to the House to tell us about the process and that delay?
I draw the Leader of the House's attention to early-day motion 375, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), on the exceptions service and the Post Office.
[That this House calls on the Government to clarify as a matter of urgency how housebound, disabled and older people who are not able to cope with the Government's three direct payment options will be able to claim their pensions and benefits after 2005; notes that the Government has consistently acknowledged the need for an Exceptions Service, yet has failed to give any firm indication of how this system will operate; notes that the Exceptions Service will only be in place 18 months after the move to direct payments began and that letters to claimants and the Government's publicity material largely Jail to mention the Exceptions Service or that people can continue to use their order books and girocheques until 2005; notes that uncertainty about how they will be able to collect their pension or benefits has led to anxiety and distress among the most vulnerable members of our society and that many of these people have either not responded at all or have chosen an unsuitable method of receiving essential income due to ignorance of the Exceptions Service; and calls on the Government to guarantee that the Exceptions Service allows for multiple third party collectors, does not require a pinpad and PIN, is fully accessible at post offices and reinforces the viability of the Post Office Network.]
My hon. Friend raised that matter in the House last Tuesday at column 762, but the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services, who responded to the debate, did not have a word to say about it. Some 2 million Post Office customers could benefit from the exceptions service. It has been announced as a potential lifesaver for them, but it looks as though there will be extravagant delays in bringing it in. Will the relevant Secretary of State come to the House soon to tell us about that service?
Mr. Hain: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for welcoming my feedback in response to the point raised by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler).
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs makes herself regularly available to answer questions from the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member, and I am sure that everyone agrees that she is always accountable to the House. I agree that the

965
climate change report from Leeds university is important, and he will understand that it is for that reason that the Government have adopted probably the most stringent emissions controls of any major economy anywhere in the world. We were enthusiastic signatories to, and advocates of, the Kyoto protocol as an attempt to try to control emissions so that the enormous environmental threat of climate change that the report identifies can be addressed. We are working internationally with other countries to get the protocol implemented in the most effective fashion.
I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's points on the Cory report to the attention of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. However, my right hon. Friend answered questions in the House only yesterday, so the matter could have been raised with him then.
The exemptions service for local post offices is important and, for a long time, the future of local post offices has been debated almost weekly. The Government are providing more and more pensioners and others with opportunities to use their cards. Two million pensioners have taken up the opportunity to get cash from local post offices with the card, which replaces the benefit booklet, and that is a sensible way to proceed.
Dr. Nick Palmer: In my constituency of Broxtowe, Boots has declared that one third of its headquarters work force will be made redundant. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to tell the House at the earliest opportunity what steps his Department will take to work with Boots to minimise the impact on the individuals concerned?
Mr. Hain: I will indeed. I accept my hon. Friend's concern, as that is obviously extremely bad news for those affected at Boots. However, the Government have a good record in these matters. The employment service and other relevant agencies have a good record of helping people who unfortunately have lost their jobs to find new ones. Repeatedly—I am not saying that this is true in every case—people have found new jobs, both in my hon. Friend's constituency and elsewhere across the country. When there were job losses under the previous Government people just wasted away on the dole, but now they are being helped into work, with employment rising all the time, as we heard in the announcements only yesterday.
Sir Patrick Cormack: The historic office that you hold, Mr. Speaker, has been unique to this House for 600 years or more. Does the Leader of the House therefore share the concern of many Members, both in this House and in the other place, about the suggestion that there should be a Lords Speaker in the other place? Does he agree that that would cause confusion, not least because the role of such an officer would be very different from that of Mr. Speaker in this House? Will he reflect on those things, give some encouragement to those of us who believe that it would be a retrograde step by the House of Lords, and institute conversations with our colleagues in the other place?
Mr. Hain: I accept the points made by hon. Gentleman. Indeed, there are other concerns about the
966
matter, which I have discussed with the Speaker and, as a result, have had the conversations that he requested. There is no question in my mind but that the Speaker of the House of Commons is the Speaker, who is known and widely recognised across the world.
Mr. David Drew: Mr. Speaker, I totally concur.
My right hon. Friend will be aware that this week a report was published on mobile phones and other telecommunications equipment, including masts. Does he agree that that is an important report, so it is right and proper that the House should have the opportunity to look at some of the issues arising from it? In particular, does he agree that some of the commitments made by services such as Airwave about monitoring equipment are not always kept? The issue has caused a great deal of alarm among members of the public, who would like us to take it up. Can he therefore find time for such a debate?
Mr. Hain: I shall certainly look at the matter, which the Government agree is important. We already support a £7.4 million mobile telecommunications and health research programme, which is jointly funded by the industry, but my hon. Friend has raised an issue about which there is widespread concern across the country and, indeed, in the House. He has the opportunity, as do other Members, to apply for a debate. Given the concern that exists in the House, it may be possible to hold an early debate.
Mr. John Wilkinson: The Leader of the House will remember that when the Greater London Authority Bill became law, Her Majesty's Government promised that the House would still hold regular debates on London matters. Is he conscious of the fact that that has not occurred? In view of the burgeoning deficit of Transport for London, which will add to the already hefty precept paid by Londoners, it is time that Parliament debated London matters in the House, not Westminster Hall, as a matter of urgency.
Mr. Hain: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Minister for London regularly answers questions before the House, and the hon. Gentleman has the opportunity to raise all sorts of issues with him and to apply for a debate. Notwithstanding the House's pre-eminent interest in such matters, he will also understand that, because of devolution, another authority is responsible for running such services and implementing policies. Obviously, adjustments have to be made in the way that we prioritise matters, given devolution, but the Minister for London is accountable and responsible to the House, and that will continue.
Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: Before Second Reading of the Higher Education Bill, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the position of the university vice-chancellors? It is particularly important in view of the scathing comments made at a recent all-party group meeting on the position of the Liberals and Conservatives as being risible and beneath contempt.
Mr. Hain: I would certainly welcome such a debate. Obviously, if it is possible to find time for it before the

967
higher education debate that I announced for 27 January, we will consider that. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that everyone understands that the vice-chancellors—who, I understand, met an all-party group in the Palace of Westminster only this week—regarded, as she says, with total contempt and as risible the Opposition's policies on that matter. I very much welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), who said:
"On this issue, the Government is right and there is simply no good reason why the Conservatives should oppose its proposals."
He said that the Opposition's policies
"would deprive almost half a million young people of the opportunity to enter higher education. It is not too late to change course."
I hope that the hon. Gentleman's leader will listen to him.
Mr. Nigel Dodds: In the light of the very serious rioting that took place last night inside one of Her Majesty's prisons at Maghaberry in Northern Ireland, the very serious threats to prison officers' security in their own homes and the threat of possible industrial action arising from that, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to come urgently before the House to make a statement on those important matters concerning prisons in Northern Ireland, which could affect stability on the streets of Northern Ireland?
Mr. Hain: I understand the importance of that matter, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising it. Northern Ireland Ministers are talking to the Prison Officers Association about those matters. Obviously, they will want to keep the House informed in the appropriate way, and I am sure that they will want to keep him informed about the outcome.
Richard Burden: Will my right hon. Friend find an opportunity in the next week for the House to recognise the death of Tom Hurndall, the British photographer who died on Tuesday night, having been in a coma for several months after he had been shot by an Israeli soldier while trying to rescue Palestinian children in the Gaza strip? If there were an opportunity to have such a debate in the House, we could use it, first, to pay tribute to Tom's bravery; secondly, to pay tribute to the dignity and determination that his family have shown during their ordeal over the past few months; thirdly, to ensure that the charges against the soldier who has been arrested for the shooting fit the severity of the crime and to make representations to Israel about that; and, fourthly, to suggest that all the evidence about that case should be made available to Tom's family. Finally, if we are to honour Tom and his memory, may I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 407, regarding Israel's separation wall?
[That this House calls on Israel to cease immediately the building of its Separation Wall deep within Palestinian territory, which, according to the preliminary analysis by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs of maps published by the Israeli Government, will be 687 km long and will leave more than
968
274,000 Palestinians living in 122 villages and towns either surrounded by the Wall or trapped between the Wall and Israel's internationally recognised borders, some even requiring permits from Israel to continue living in their own homes; notes that the analysis estimates that a further 400,000 Palestinians living east of the Wall will be separated from their farms, jobs, markets, hospitals and schools, and that the Wall will have "severe humanitarian consequences" for 30 per cent, of the entire Palestinian population of the West Bank; contrasts this with the fact that UN figures reveal that 54 Israeli settlements in the West Bank and 63 per cent, of settlers will be on the side of the wall next to Israel, giving Israel control over the richest agricultural land and the aquifer system which provides much of the West Bank's water resources; further notes that the Wall is made up of concrete, razor wire and electronic fences, trenches, motion sensors, guard towers and security roads, that it costs $4.7 million per kilometre and that it violates articles 53 and 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, to which Britain is a high-contracting party, which forbids the destruction of property and confinement of persons by an occupier; welcomes the decision of the International Court of Justice to open hearings into the legal consequences of the construction of the Wall; further notes that, whilst Israel needs security, the Wall does not follow internationally recognised borders; insists that it does not become a de facto border for a future Palestinian state; further notes that only a reinvigorated peace process with full international support will stop the violence on both sides, not an 8 metre high wall; and calls on the British Government to bring all available pressure to bear on Israel to cease building this Wall.]
It would probably have meant more to Tom than anything else if we were to play a role in building bridges between Israelis and Palestinians, rather than allowing them to construct walls.
Mr. Hain: This was an absolutely appalling incident and a stain on the record of the Israeli defence force, and I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Tom Hurndall and to the dignity of his family, who have suffered gravely over the past few months. On the question of providing evidence to the family, I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that Baroness Symons is writing to the Israeli Foreign Minister with the family's request for information, and we will certainly do all that we can to help in this situation.
Sir George Young: When will we have the annual debate on the rate support grant settlement? Is the Leader of the House aware of the widespread disbelief in Hampshire and elsewhere that council tax increases can be held to the level expected by the Government? A very large number of hon. Members on both sides of the House will want to take part in that debate, so will he organise adequate time and separate it from the debate about police resources? Those issues are traditionally discussed in the same debate, but this year they deserve separate debates of their own.
Mr. Hain: Obviously, the issues that the right hon. Gentleman raises—particularly given that he raises them with his authority in the House—will be closely looked at by Ministers. I am sure that he will appreciate

969
that his council, along with other councils throughout the country, have had above-inflation increases under this Government, after years of cuts under Conservative Governments. We all want to see a limit on council tax rises—they have been going up at too high a rate—and the Government are working with local authorities and providing the funding that, I hope, will ensure that that happens throughout the country.
Mrs. Ann Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the usefulness of a debate on the new educational maintenance grant? We could then promote its take-up specifically in the Asian community, which could, in turn, lead to a reduction in the appalling number—300—of girls who are removed, year on year, from Bradford district schools at the age of 12-plus.
Mr. Hain: First, I acknowledge my hon. Friend's strong involvement in this vital area? Further education, especially, has been widely neglected over the decades. It is now being given exactly the priority that it always should have had, and educational maintenance grants are an important part of that. I am sure the issue that she raises—the importance of the Asian community having access to, and knowledge of, those grants—is one to which the Secretary of State for Education and Skills will pay close attention.
Mr. Andrew Mackay: I make no apology for returning to the Prime Minister's role in the Hutton debate when it takes place in the House because, week after week, we fail to get satisfactory answers from either the Leader of the House or the Prime Minister. Is the Leader of the House aware that only two Ministers were interviewed and cross-examined by Lord Hutton—the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence? So there is an open-and-shut case that they should open and close the debate. The Leader of the House has already partially quoted from column 809 of yesterday's Hansard and Prime Minister's questions, when the Prime Minister said:
"I can assure him that I have absolutely no intention of doing anything other than leading the Government's case on this issue.
That is important".—[Official Report, 14 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 809.]
I endorse that. In the light of those comments from the Prime Minister, why was the Leader of the House not prepared to tell my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) a moment ago that the Prime Minister would lead in the debate, as well as make a statement? There is absolutely no excuse or reason why he should not lead in the debate as well.
Mr. Hain: May I just say that the repeated way in which the right hon. Gentleman, the shadow Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition have sought to question the Prime Minister's integrity is shabby and distasteful? At the appropriate time, there will be announcements about the handling of the debate, as there always are, and about who will open and who will close it and on the other procedures for handling it.
The right hon. Gentleman and the whole House should leave Lord Hutton to continue to complete his report and to publish it in his own way. When he does so, the Prime Minister will be the first up in the House
970
to report to the House in the statement, and arrangements for a debate will be announced as soon as it is possible to do so. The right hon. Gentleman will have to hold his breath for that.
Joan Ruddock: My right hon. Friend will have seen reports this week that genetically modified maize could be sown for commercial planting this spring. Does he think that that is a reality? Does he agree that a debate is long overdue, given that the GM science report, the GM economics report, the GM public debate report and the GM report on farm-scale evaluations have all been published without an opportunity for hon. Members to debate those matters in the Chamber?
Mr. Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend that a debate is needed; I have indicated as much before. The latest report adds to the case for having as early a debate as it is possible for the business managers and the Secretary of State to plan. It is important that all these issues are properly evaluated, and I know that there is concern about them right across the House.
Mr. Andrew Rosindell: The Leader of the House will be aware that, today, the Royal Mail is launching the United Kingdom's first ever digital stamp. That means that the traditional stamp can be ditched in favour of a computerised version. Will he arrange for the Secretary of State to come to the House to clarify the concerns of my constituents, who fear that this will mean the ending of the Queen's head on British stamps, and to eliminate the possibility that that could happen?
Mr. Hain: That is fatuous nonsense. The Queen's head will remain on all stamps sold to the hon. Gentleman, to other Members of the House and the public. He will understand that franking goes on—and has gone on for decades—by commercial organisations that do not use the actual physical stamp with the Queen's head on it. He will also understand that even he could move into the modern era and consider digital forms of franking. That is what the issue is about. He should really focus on more important matters.
David Winnick: In view of the remarks of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) and in the spirit of modernisation, should we not learn from the devolved institutions? Is there not a case for the Government to consider whether the occupant of the Chair in both Houses should simply be called President?
Mr. Hain: No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Anthony Steen: In view of the pro-European credentials of the Leader of the House and his belief in open government, is he aware that, on 3 December at the European Scrutiny Committee, we voted to have our deliberative sessions in public? That is a great step forward for the media and the public. They will be able to hear what we are doing. We examine hundreds of pages of directives and other stuff every month, and we want to share them with the public and the media. Is there a problem with that, or could we just have a notice on the door saying, "Open to the public"?
Mr. Hain: I very much welcome the European Scrutiny Committee's decision. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

971
Indeed I do. In fact, I would like to see greater scrutiny of European matters in and by the House. I shall be considering, along with colleagues on the Modernisation Committee, how we can take that forward.
Mr. Bill Tynan: Will the Leader of the House accept that we have a limited time available in which to discuss cannabis reclassification? Will he consider an urgent debate based on the evidence that there seems to be a growing incidence of mental health problems among users of cannabis? Will he do that as soon as possible?
Mr. Hain: Home Office Ministers are aware of the report and they have commented on it. I know that there is concern about this issue, and I am sure that Ministers will listen closely to the points that my hon. Friend makes. He will, of course, have an opportunity to secure a debate on the matter himself.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: May I strongly support the comments of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on the need for a debate in the House on the safety and health aspects of mobile telephony following the publication this week of the report by the Government's adviser, Professor Lawrie Challis, the findings of which can only really be described as inconclusive? Such a debate would enable hon. Members on both sides of the House to express widespread concern and also enable us to mount the case for more Government money to be spent on independent research. The research to which the hon. Gentleman referred is largely funded by the industry itself.
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I know that he has applied for a private Member's debate on the matter. I hope that he, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), is successful in achieving it. We welcome the publication of the report of the Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation on the health effects from radio frequency electromagnetic fields. It is important that we keep this rapidly developing area under review. I know that the hon. Gentleman's constituency concerns are important in that respect.
Jane Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend make time for an early debate on the atrocious situation in Zimbabwe? In discussions with his ministerial colleagues, will he bear in mind the hideous persecution being meted out to gay and lesbian people in Zimbabwe that has forced my constituent, Neil Noble, to become an asylum seeker?
Mr. Hain: The situation in Zimbabwe is tragic and atrocious. The deterioration of the country under Robert Mugabe's tyrannical leadership just makes everyone want to cry. The people in the country are suffering as they have never suffered before. In fact, they are suffering more than many of them, including Robert Mugabe himself, suffered under the old white minority
972
regime. It is time that Zimbabwe changed direction and got back on the road to being the prosperous jewel in the crown of African countries that it once was.
Angus Robertson: Is now not the right time to debate extending the powers of the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales? That might give the Leader of the House the opportunity to expand on his damning indictment of the Scottish Executive. Perhaps he could give the House an insight into whether he thinks that the problem is entirely the fault of the Scottish Labour party or whether he also blames its coalition partner colleagues, the Liberal Democrats.
Mr. Hain: This is another bit of nationalist spin joined by the Scottish press and the broadcasting authorities, who have completely misrepresented—as they all too often do—what goes on in the Scottish Executive and the leadership of the Labour party in Scotland. I have made it perfectly clear to those in Wales who want a Scottish parliamentary solution as an alternative to the present democratic settlement that, if they want that solution, they will have to have a referendum. There were tax-varying powers on which the people of Scotland voted in 1997, so there would have to be a referendum on that in Wales. As Scotland has had its own legal system for many years and Wales does not, there is also an issue there as to what is appropriate. Scotland, under the Scottish Parliament, has done very well. It is the case that Wales has done better economically; it has done better than any other economic region of Britain under the present powers of the Welsh Assembly.
I believe that the First Minister in Scotland, Jack McConnell, is doing an outstanding job and that the Scottish Executive are doing a good job for Scotland, with record public investment, record numbers of jobs being created and unemployment coming down. That has all happened under Labour and compares with what happened under the Conservatives when all that was in reverse. If the nationalists got their way, there would be an independent Scotland, and it would become bankrupt.
Geraint Davies: Members of the House are regularly e-mailed with unsolicited pornography. Most recently, there has been a massive increase in illegal child pornography, and that has occurred at a time when the NCH has released a publication producing research linking internet child pornography and child abuse. May we have an urgent debate to push forward action against those who produce child pornography and to link up with action in the United States and in the industry? That should focus in particular on the United States, which is the origin of the transmission of millions and millions of illegal images that are causing crime globally?
Mr. Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is absolutely revolting and obscene that we, and citizens the length and breadth of the country, including children, should receive such outrageous pornography on our e-mail systems. That is why the House authorities are monitoring the situation daily to try to block it and to put firewalls in place that stop it. He can be reassured by

973
that and by the fact that the Government are considering how we can stop the flow—electronically, as it were—of such awful material across the Atlantic.
Mr. Eric Forth: When the Leader of the House had his little whinge about Opposition days, did he not let the cat out of the bag? He implied that Government Members of Parliament really do not want to be here, want to have something utterly predictable in their diary and are incapable of preparing for a debate unless they are given lots of time to be briefed about it. When will we get the spontaneity back into our proceedings and when will the Government and the Leader of the House, in particular, allow greater spontaneity in questions and in debates? Will he please drop this pathetic attitude on behalf of his right hon. and hon. Friends that, unless they are briefed well in advance and know exactly what will happen, they cannot function as Members of Parliament?
Mr. Hain: I do miss the right hon. Gentleman as shadow Leader of the House. He was great fun. His successor is doing a great job but the right hon. Gentleman provided extra spice and interest for us all. Having said that, I find his specific question extraordinary. He quite rightly wants advance notice of Government business but wishes right hon. and hon. Members to be denied knowledge of forthcoming business—perhaps on a Tuesday or Wednesday.
Mr. Forth: Yes.
Mr. Hain: So the right hon. Gentleman thinks it is a good thing, even if Members cannot plan their diaries and perhaps have to cancel appointments because an important issue has arisen on which they want to speak? It is not about Ministers but about right hon. and hon. Members having notice—as they always have with both Conservative and Labour Oppositions in the past. I hope that the welcome practice announced today will continue.
Julie Morgan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Welsh Assembly voted yesterday to end the defence of reasonable chastisement in relation to parents hitting their children? Under the Assembly's present powers, it cannot do anything more, but will my right hon. Friend urge the Minister for Children to incorporate that policy into the forthcoming children Bill?
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Julie Morgan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it cannot be right that adults have greater protection than children?
Mr. Hain: I was aware of the vote to my which hon. Friend referred. The Minister for Children is carefully considering that issue.

Points of Order
1.11 pm
Dr. Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I refer not to the presence of the current demonstration in Parliament square but to the volume of noise periodically projected into Parliament—such that right hon. and hon. Members cannot work peacefully in their own offices. When I spoke to the main protestor in Parliament square last night, he was frank enough to admit that the amplification is so loud because the small number of demonstrators want their protest to be heard above the traffic noise and penetrate these buildings. Does the Leader of the House know of any moves to ensure that Westminster city council which tells me it cannot do anything about it, or the police, who feel that they are not allowed to do anything respectively—can stop the pathetic failure to allow right hon. and hon. Members, staff of the House and residents to carry on their business undisturbed?
Mr. Speaker: I, too, am concerned about the noise to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I understand that matter has been taken up with the Leader of the House and the Procedure Committee. I hope that it can be resolved, because the demonstration goes beyond the normal peaceful protest in which I have been involved as a trade unionist and political activist—as have other right hon. and hon. Members.
Mr. Michael Jack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that, tomorrow, the performance and innovation unit at Downing street is to present the Prime Minister and senior Ministers with what is described as an audit of the Government's performance. As that document will have been produced using public funds, will it be possible to ensure that a copy is placed in the Library and is made available in the Vote Office?
Mr. Speaker: Why does the hon. Gentleman not raise that matter at Business Questions next week? Perhaps he will be at the front of the queue.
Mr. Hain: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), Mr. Speaker. I agree with the sentiments that you expressed in respect of the situation outside the Palace. We shall proceed to deal with it as quickly as we can.

Privilege
1.14 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: I beg to move,
That the First Special Report from the Constitutional Affairs Committee (House of Commons Paper No. 210) be referred to the Committee on Standards and Privileges.
I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for confirming that the report raises an important matter and for giving it precedence over all other business today. I hope that we can deal with it expeditiously, so that right hon. and hon. Members can go on to deal with the Bill set down for debate this afternoon. However, the report is important because it concerns the freedom of witnesses to give evidence to the House and its Committees without fear of penalty or punishment. That freedom has been reasserted by the House on many occasions.
The Constitutional Affairs Committee conducted an inquiry last year into the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service—a non-departmental public body whose board was appointed by the Lord Chancellor. Ms. Judy Weleminsky, a CAFCASS board member, submitted written evidence on her own behalf, much of it critical of the management of CAFCASS. She received advice that she was protected by parliamentary privilege when giving evidence to the Committee.
Ms. Weleminsky's evidence, along with evidence from many other witnesses, greatly assisted the Committee in reaching its conclusions—which were severely critical of CAFCASS management, of the organisation's failure to meet its responsibilities to vulnerable children affected by court proceedings and of aspects of the Lord Chancellor's dealings with CAFCASS.
One of the Committee's recommendations was that a fundamental review of the board of CAFCASS should be undertaken. The Government accepted that and other recommendations and commissioned a review. The chairman of CAFCASS had already resigned. Following the review the Lord Chancellor asked all the remaining board members to resign. Ms Weleminsky declined to do so.
In December, Ms Weleminsky received a letter from the Lord Chancellor that suspended her from duty as a board member and indicated an intention to dismiss her, on grounds that included an allegation that she had
"failed to behave in a corporate manner".
Accompanying the letter was a document to which the letter referred—a review by a senior civil servant in the Department of Constitutional Affairs, Mr. David Crawley, of a dossier submitted by the former Chairman of the CAFCASS board, Mr. Hewson, before he resigned. The first of the six specific allegations set out in the document that accompanied the Lord Chancellor's letter was that
"Ms Weleminsky presented separate evidence to the Select Committee looking into CAFCASS, in a manner which undermined the organisation."
The document concluded that that evidence
"was (and was intended to be) in conflict with the evidence that CAFCASS itself had previously submitted to the Committee".
The document goes on to list other allegations, which Ms Weleminsky disputes but which are not part of the Committee's concern in relation to today's motion. Our
976
concern is that the words to which I have referred, even if they are combined with other allegations, could amount to a serious case of interfering with a witness.
As soon as that matter came to my notice I wrote to the Lord Chancellor expressing grave concern and asking for an explanation. After taking advice, the Lord Chancellor replied that his decision to suspend Ms Weleminsky did not
"depend wholly, or in part, on the fact that she had given evidence to the Select Committee…I make it clear that no disciplinary action can be based on the fact of giving evidence to the Select Committee"
but further added that
"having regard to the reference in Mr. Crawley's dossier to this allegation, I should have made this clear".
He went on to give his view that
"even ignoring this allegation, suspension was clearly justified".
The Lord Chancellor's letter to Ms Weleminsky also reveals that he was considering her dismissal on the basis of allegations in the dossier before the review and before the decision to ask the entire board to resign. That correspondence is set out in appendices to the Committee's special report.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Even if the Lord Chancellor is correct when he says that he did not take any account of the evidence given to the Select Committee, it is deeply worrying that a senior civil servant—no doubt reflecting the general understanding within the civil service—should have thought that giving evidence to a Select Committee was a proper subject for disciplinary action.
Mr. Beith: That is one of the reasons for the Committee's wish that the matter should be considered by the Committee on Standards and Privileges. Personally, I am not at all surprised that any witness receiving the Lord Chancellor's original letter together with the document containing the allegation should form the impression that they were being punished, at least in part, for giving evidence to a Committee of the House. Having considered the Lord Chancellor's reply, my Committee concluded that
"the process of disciplining Ms. Weleminsky, starting with the dossier prepared by Mr. Hewson, continuing with the review of the matter by Mr. Crawley and ending with the letter from the Lord Chancellor to Ms. Weleminsky and the supporting document might be regarded as a prima facie breach of privilege."
Committees of the House that seek to carry out effective scrutiny depend on being able to assure witnesses that they can give evidence freely, without fear of penalty. It needs to be clearly understood in Departments, public bodies and elsewhere that if that freedom is found to be threatened, it will be protected.
The Committee on Standards and Privileges has the power to establish whether a breach of privilege has taken place and, if so, to make whatever recommendations it believes appropriate. Accordingly, I ask the House to refer the matter to the Committee on Standards and Privileges.
1.20 pm
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): I congratulate the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on the typically even-handed manner in which he moved the motion.

977
I want to make my position clear at the outset. With the leave of the House, I am happy to respond to any appropriate points that are made in the debate. The Government fully support the motion because it is right for the House to refer possible breaches to the Committee on Standards and Privileges and we welcome its scrutiny in this case.
The Government fully respect the privileges of the House and we will uphold them to the end. They are crucial to the independence of Parliament and the strength of our democracy. We are strongly committed to Select Committees. We have taken steps to increase their independence and effectiveness and we fully accept the need for witnesses to be able to speak out to Select Committees without fear or favour under the protection of parliamentary privilege.
The Government regard any possible breach of privilege with the greatest seriousness and look to the Committee on Standards and Privileges to establish whether such a breach has occurred in this case.
Mr. Hogg: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell the House what directions will be given to the civil service to ensure that never again will a senior official regard giving evidence to a Select Committee as an appropriate ground for disciplinary action.
Mr. Hain: Although the right hon. and learned Gentleman has raised a point that is important to him, it would be wrong of me to anticipate the Select Committee's report.
It is not appropriate for me to deal here with the substance of the case. I simply draw attention to the statement that the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs made in his letter to the Committee. It appears as appendix 3 of the Committee's special report and states that
"it would be quite wrong to discipline someone in her position for having given evidence to the Committee, and I would not do so…I completely understand that individuals must feel free to give evidence to Select Committees …the fact of her giving evidence cannot form part of any action against her."
My right hon. Friend would welcome an investigation by the Committee on Standards and Privileges to clarify the matter and will, of course, provide whatever further information it requires to reach its conclusions.
1.22 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald: I thank the Leader of the House for the welcome assurance that the Government will support the motion. I join his tribute to the Chairman of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), for his presentation of the motion.
As the Leader of the House said, it would be wrong to prejudge the outcome. However, in supporting the motion, I emphasise that the allegation that Lord Falconer threatened a witness with dismissal for giving evidence to Parliament under the protection of a Select Committee is serious. It should therefore be referred for investigation. The ministerial code makes it clear that Ministers should require civil servants who give evidence before parliamentary Committees to be as helpful as possible in providing accurate, truthful and
978
full information. It cannot be said that threatening someone's job for giving evidence to a Committee fulfils that standard.
The allegation would be serious if it were made against any employer, but it is doubly so when it involves a Minister who is also the most senior legal figure in the country. It is worth recalling that the Lord Chancellor has a parliamentary role in that he is the occupant of the Woolsack—the presiding officer of the House of Lords.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I like to give Front-Bench spokesmen leeway but we must be careful. We have a motion to put the matter before the Committee on Standards and Privileges. It is for the Committee to judge it and talk about the individuals involved. The matter will then revert to the House, when the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and every other hon. Member will have the freedom to argue the case about who was right and who was wrong. We must be careful at this stage.
Mr. Heald: I fully accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker. The reason for setting out the seriousness of the allegation is simply to emphasise that it should be referred—
Mr. Clive Soley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I welcome the way in which the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who chairs our Committee, put the case. It is important to get the case right. There are issues about the civil service and there may be matters about Ministers to consider. However, we should not judge them now. It is for the Committee on Standards and Privileges to determine the matter and we should debate it subsequently if necessary. Frankly, the less said the better at the moment. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule that we simply refer the matter and get on with the business.
Mr. Speaker: I have already ruled on the matter. Again, I plead with the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire and others who are seeking to catch my eye to be very careful.
Mr. Heald: I fully accept that, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) for his conduct of the matter in Committee.
I want to make two other points. First, as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said, the Committee and the Government accepted the points that were presented. Consequently, CAFCASS, which provides important services to vulnerable children, could be reformed in the manner for which the witness had campaigned for a considerable time.
The lady has been suspended on the ground that she was not corporate enough and that confidential information was breached. The Committee will have to explore that because the Nolan rules on the conduct of members of public bodies are clear and include nothing about having to be corporate or to respect information.

979
They are about independence, openness, accountability and sticking up for one's views as a member of a public body. On that basis, we strongly support the motion.
Sir Patrick Cormack rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put, but MR. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put the Question.
1.27 pm
Keith Vaz: I shall be brief, but I speak as a member of the Constitutional Affairs Committee. I fully endorse the words of the Chairman, who put the case very even-handedly. It is important that the issue does not distract from the excellent report on CAFCASS that the Select Committee produced. It showed the huge failings in that body's operation and resulted in a rare example of the Government doing what a Committee wanted it to do, in this case changing the way in which the board operated and making a fresh start.
To counter the point that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) made, the Lord Chancellor's letter of 8 January, which is published in the documents, makes it clear that the fact that the matter has come before the House has nothing to do with the way in which the witness gave evidence. He states that three times.
I hope that the Committee will consider confidentiality. When witnesses sign confidentiality clauses or appear in a confidential relationship and subsequently give evidence to a Committee, it should be clear that Parliament overrides that confidentiality. It has not been clear in the past, and the referral gives the Committee an opportunity to pronounce on that.
1.28 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: In deliberating on whether I should support the motion to refer the matter to the Committee on Standards and Privileges, I inevitably have to make some judgment about the contents of the report. It would be difficult for any hon. Member to make a decision about the relevance of referring the matter without making at least some judgment about elements of the report.
Several matters are involved, but two of the most salient are the political aspect, which is the Lord Chancellor's involvement, and the one that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) raised concerning the conduct of a senior civil servant.
My plea, which I hope it is legitimate to make in this debate, is that when the Committee on Standards and Privileges comes to examine the matter―I hope that it will, as, on balance, I think I support the motion—it will feel free to examine the political aspects involving the Lord Chancellor, notwithstanding his own phrase in the document before us, that
"I completely understand that individuals must feel free to give evidence to Select Committees",
for which I suppose we must be grateful. I also hope that the Standards and Privileges Committee will spend as much time as it feels is necessary examining the role of
980
the civil servants involved and, as has already been touched on, the perception that civil servants have of the role of this House and its Select Committees. Surely that is what is really at stake here, and we should therefore be grateful to the Committee chaired by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing us to pursue the matter.
If the examination shines a light on the attitude of senior civil servants to members of the public, or of public bodies, giving evidence to Select Committees, that will be a matter of the utmost gravity. It is very important for the Committee on Standards and Privileges to take all the time it needs, and to go as far as it needs, in examining the ramifications of the case. It might look like just one case, and it might or might not be isolated, but it sets the alarm bells ringing over the attitude of the Government, in political and administrative matters, to the Committees of this House and to the relationship between the Executive and the legislature. This case has the potential to be that important, so I urge the Committee to treat it with the utmost gravity and to go into it in whatever detail is necessary.
1.31 pm
Mr. Richard Shepherd: I want to express my gratitude to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) for making such a succinct and powerful case in moving the motion. I agree with him, and with the Leader of the House and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), that this matter is important. It touches on something essential to the functioning of this House as a corporate body, if I may pick out language from the report. We have to be assured that any witness coming before a Select Committee is protected, and I recognise, as did the Government when they supported the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, that the concept of whistleblowing is important.
The circumstances clearly laid out in the report show that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and the Constitutional Affairs Committee have grasped that, because they have brought the matter to the House to ask for it to be referred to the Standards and Privileges Committee. Like everyone who has spoken so far, I support the motion, which is in the interests of this House and important for those who do not understand the mysterious word "privilege". Privilege enables people to give their knowledge freely and honestly, without retribution, better to inform us in our judgments. Privilege in this instance is a protection not of our vanity but of the wider public interest. I know that the Government have always recognised that, in this and in the preceding Parliament, and that they work closely with Public Concern at Work. The issues surrounding that public interest that are raised are fundamental to privilege in this House.
1.34 pm
Peter Bottomley: Judy Weleminsky and the others who gave evidence to the Constitutional Affairs Committee when it was considering the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service will know that what they said was

981
important not only to the Committee's report but to the way in which the Government are taking forward the important work that CAFCASS is doing. We should recognise, as have others, that the Government have paid attention to that report, which was important to the children whose interests are supposed to be represented by CAFCASS, and to their futures. That is the underlying point from the Constitutional Affairs Committee.
From the point of view of the House, the issues have been well spelled out. I should like to pick up on the question, posed by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), of when confidentiality agreements can be overridden in the public interest and in Parliament's pursuit of information. This time, that is an issue not for the Standards and Privileges Committee but for the Public Administration Committee or some similar Committee. I would ask that Committee to consider the very tight rules that the new Ofcom board is laying down for its members. I do not want to criticise that board, but that is an illustration of how tightly some such rules are now written. Being corporate and acting in solidarity can matter, but there are times when that needs to be overridden. It is worth having a serious investigation into that, which goes beyond this investigation into privilege.
There are some interesting questions on this issue. For example, from what board meetings has this board member been suspended, if that board has resigned? That takes us somewhat into Alice in Wonderland territory. We need to ask one simple question. If that lady had not refused to resign, would the House have known that evidence in the Department had come from the former chairman of CAFCASS—whom some of us believe should have resigned when our first Committee report came out—that showed that people were fingering her for the act of making information available in giving evidence to the Select Committee?
Keith Vaz: Before the hon. Gentleman strays into the details of the case, may I ask whether all the other members of the CAFCASS board have resigned?
Peter Bottomley: I cannot confirm that. I know that the board members have agreed to resign, but I am not competent to say whether the board no longer exists, and it is not relevant to the debate. I am in line with those who do not want to go into the detail, but I want to make the broader point that unless Ms Weleminsky had refused to resign, the House would not have known that the evidence was available, had been given by the outgoing chairman, was in the hands of officials and was listed as point No. 1 by the reviewing official from the Scotland Office. It is only because she declined to resign that we know that. She deserves praise for making it possible for us, as a House, to know what was going on. That is important because every week, officials, members of public bodies and others have to consider whether to make information available. Despite some embarrassment and difficulty, they have to overcome their fears. That is why the point about privilege is important.
Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman is not helping the situation, although he did a very good job with the rest of us on the Constitutional Affairs Committee
982
yesterday. It is the job of the Standards and Privileges Committee to go into this sort of detail. It is for the House to debate that when the Committee has reported, if we think that that is appropriate. To go into such detail now is in effect to put on trial other people as well as the lady concerned. That is just not fair.
Peter Bottomley: At the risk of upsetting the hon. Gentleman, I think, bluntly and flatly, that he is completely wrong. I do not care whether I am the only person in the House who makes this point, but unless that lady had refused to resign, we should not have known what was disclosed in the documents. That is the point that I am trying to make, and on that point I shall end my speech. We actually depend—[Interruption.] This might be a laughing matter for some, but that does not serve this House.
We relied on that lady to give evidence in the original inquiry, and we would not have known what evidence against her was being accumulated if she had not refused to resign. My point is no greater than that, and it is not partisan. The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) will recognise that I have not mentioned the Lord Chancellor or gone into details about him. I have made the sole point that we have this information because of her actions.
1.39 pm
Kevin Brennan: I want to make a few brief remarks as a member of the Public Administration Committee. On the remarks made by the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) on confidentiality clauses, the Public Administration Committee is taking forward an inquiry into inquiries, and this matter may fall within its ambit.
One of my constituents approached me about the Chairman of the Committee's inquiry because she was giving evidence. She wanted to ask my advice as her Member of Parliament about how she should approach giving evidence to the Committee on the CAFCASS inquiry. I told her that she should give her evidence truthfully, without fear and in the knowledge that there would be no repercussions for her professional career. I am sure that every hon. Member would have given the same advice to any constituent who approached them on this matter. That is why I welcome the statement from the Leader of the House that the Government support the reference to the Standards and Privileges Committee. At this point, it would be inappropriate for us to explore in any further detail the minutiae of the case.
1.40 pm
Mr. Clive Soley: I had not intended to speak and it is perhaps a pity that people have spoken to the degree that they have, but I now feel the need to say that an important, central and narrow point was dealt with by the Committee on Tuesday and to tell the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley), who was helpful in my view and absolutely right in that Committee to argue the cases that he did, that that narrow and specific point is that no citizen of the United Kingdom should face any fear or favour over giving evidence to a Select Committee. That is the core point.

983
Around that central point in this case, there are many arguments about what was happening in the background. It is the job of the Standards and Privileges Committee to highlight what needs to be said there and to produce the report. It may be right to say many of the things that are being said now, but to say them about other people who are not in a position to answer for themselves at this stage, when we have not had the benefit of the report, is wrong.
That is why, very simply, we should refer the matter on this narrow issue knowing—I have full confidence in the Standards and Privileges Committee in this respect—that the Committee will do all the background work necessary to focus on the underlying factors, including the other members of the board, civil servants and the Minister. When the Committee has done that and produced its report, it may be important and necessary to have a debate in the House. If so, that will be the time to speak. This is not the time to finger other people or to start putting them on trial. That is wrong.
1.42 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: All I want to say is that, clearly, this is a serious matter. I have every confidence in my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and his Committee, but I want to express the hope that they will be able to deal with the matter not only thoroughly, but expeditiously, so that the substance can be debated at the earliest reasonable date.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That the First Special Report from the Constitutional Affairs Committee (House of Commons Paper No. 210) be referred to the Committee on Standards and Privileges.

Orders of the Day

  Human Tissue Bill
  [Relevant document: The First Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Session 2003–04, Cultural objects: developments since 2000, HC 59, is relevant.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  1.43 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The origins of the legislation lie in the distress, grief and anger felt by families in Bristol and Liverpool when they discovered that the organs of their deceased loved ones had been retained without consent. The Bristol, Alder Hey and Isaacs inquiries demonstrated that that had taken place on a large scale. It was a tragedy for the families affected and it was unacceptable. The aim of the legislation is to ensure that it will not happen again.
  The Bill has five key functions. First, it will ensure that no human bodies, body parts, organs or tissue will be taken for research or other specified purposes without the consent of relatives or patients. Secondly, it will prevent a recurrence of the distress caused by the retention of tissue and organs without proper consent by providing safeguards and penalties. Thirdly, it will improve public confidence so that people will be more willing to agree to valuable uses of tissue and organs for research and transplantation.
  The Bill will also improve professional confidence so that properly authorised supplies of tissue for research, education and transplantation can be maintained and improved. Finally, the Bill will allow national museums to repatriate human remains in response to claims from the descendants of indigenous people whose remains are held in museums.
  Dr. Brian Iddon: There is a lot of difficulty over the phrase "appropriate consent" in the Bill. As my hon. Friend has already referred to consent, without using that phrase, will she expand on and explain to the House exactly what the Government mean by "appropriate consent"?
  Ms Winterton: If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I will come to that point later.
  In 1999, at the public inquiry on children's heart surgery in Bristol, it emerged that it was commonplace for children's hearts and other organs to be retained post mortem without the parents' knowledge or consent. The subsequent Alder Hey inquiry, the Isaacs inquiry and the chief medical officer's 2001 census left us in absolutely no doubt as to the scale on which tissue and organs were being retained without consent.
  Those reports showed that that practice was not limited to particular hospitals or to children's post-mortems. More than 100,000 hearts, brains, lungs and other organs of children and adults were being kept. In Northern Ireland, the human organs inquiry confirmed that similar practices had occurred there. Part of the tragedy was that, ironically, in many cases the families

  985
  concerned would readily have accepted the use of their loved ones' tissues or organs for medical research if only they had been asked.
  Mr. Martyn Jones: My hon. Friend will be aware of the Valentines, a family in my constituency whose daughter Kayleigh was subject to the problems at Alder Hey. They had three lots of organs returned to them, which has made them distraught over 11 years. Through me, can she assure them that the Bill will insist on prior informed parental consent in such circumstances so that this never happens again?
  Ms Winterton: Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend that that will be the case, particularly because we are very aware of exactly the type of case that he has highlighted. It is difficult for us in the House to imagine the distress that families such as the one in his constituency have been through. That is why we are introducing the legislation. He is right in that post-mortem practice that is unacceptable in today's society had developed over many years. While practice was directed at supporting medical knowledge and research, it failed to respect the interests of families in the way that he described. It had become routine for tissue taken post mortem to be kept for archives, research and education, but without proper discussion with those close to the deceased.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister referred to Northern Ireland and she is right that people would have been prepared to give permission. In a particular case in my constituency, people gave permission on certain organs, but no more. However, that was not accepted and, later on, they were horrified to discover not only that things had been done against their wishes, but that the residue was sent back to them separately, leading to three separate interments.
  Ms Winterton: That is exactly the sort of situation that has led to continuing distress for many families, which is why we want the legislation to be specific. The guidance that will be issued will make it clear that relatives should be given the maximum information on exactly what tissues or organs are to be used.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: As the Minister is helpfully explaining circumstances that gave rise to this Bill, it might help if she were to include circumstances in which consent has not simply not been sought or given, but in which organs were retained when it was the deceased's express wish that they be buried intact for religious reasons. That occurred in relation to Mr. Isaacs, the subject of the Isaacs report, and in relation to the husband of one of my constituents, who was also referred to in the anatomy inspector's report. We must deal with that problem.
  Ms Winterton: As I shall say later in my speech, Mrs. Elaine Isaacs, worked extremely hard to highlight that case. The Isaacs report showed that that was one of many occasions on which that had occurred, and that is another reason why it is important that we introduce this legislation, after having considered all the different circumstances that could apply.
  986
  Following the various reports that I have highlighted, we asked the chief medical officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, to make recommendations on the retention and use of human tissue and organs. Sir Liam reported in January 2001 and made 17 recommendations, all of which we accepted. Those recommendations were also formally accepted by the chief medical officer for Wales, and the National Assembly has worked closely with the Department of Health and other stakeholders in pursuing that agenda.
  Liz Blackman: I listened carefully to an interview that my hon. Friend gave on Radio 4 this morning with a member of the scientific fraternity. Can she assure me that during the passage of the Bill she will resist any attempt to soften the guidance and protocols in relation to the removal of tissue as well as organs, and that consent will also remain the watchword in that regard?
  Ms Winterton: I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance. As I shall say later, we have consulted extensively with the medical research community and the scientific community in putting together the proposals in the Bill. As I am sure she knows, the Bill encapsulates best practice that is already taking place. We do not expect to move away from the principle of consent that is enshrined. What most affects the medical and scientific community in research is the current situation, in which the law is not clear. The Bill clarifies the law and enables further research to go ahead. It gives the public and the research community confidence to be able to proceed as they wish to do.
  Dr. Andrew Murrison: Notwithstanding the Minister's remarks and those of the hon. Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman), does she accept that, in the minds of the general public, a clear distinction exists between blocks and slides and whole organs, and that that needs to be reflected in the Bill?
  Ms Winterton: Yes, a certain amount of discussion has taken place, as the hon. Gentleman knows, about the definition of tissue and organs. It was felt that defining that too closely could cause confusion. We believe that our approach, and the guidance that will be issued by the Human Tissue Authority, will make that clear.
  In implementing Sir Liam's recommendations and in making other changes, we have worked closely with professional and family support groups. I want to mention particularly the members of the national committee on organ retention, PITY 2—Parents who have Interred their Young twice; other support groups, including the Relatives Reference Group in Northern Ireland; and, as I said earlier, the tireless work of Mrs. Elaine Isaacs. I also thank the members and president of the Royal College of Pathologists, who recognised the need for change and have taken clear and positive steps forward. With their help and that of others, we have already achieved a lot.
  In April 2001, we established the Retained Organs Commission, which has provided advocacy, overseen the return of organs and tissue to families and given guidance to trusts. It has carried out admirably the most difficult of tasks in the most difficult of circumstances,

  987
  and I pay tribute to the chair and members of the commission for their dedication and commitment. We have published guidance and consent forms for post-mortems. We have given advice that clarifies the law as it currently stands. We have set in train a programme of work that includes providing information and support to bereaved families. We are supporting further training and development for health professionals so that the practices and principles that underlie the Bill can be taken up fully in future practice. Parallel work is being undertaken in Northern Ireland, and in Wales we have focused on the establishment of a network of trust co-ordinators to facilitate all aspects of change in anticipation of the Bill.
  The underlying principle of the changes is informed consent. Much has already been done, but the chief medical officer recommended that there should be a comprehensive review of the law relating to the whole area of the use of human tissue, from the living as well as the deceased, and its use for transplantation, research and other purposes, such as donation for teaching and education.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: What is the time scale of this review? When are we likely to have any guidance on the question of presumed consent?
  Ms Winterton: The review to which I refer is the review that the chief medical officer asked us to conduct. That has now been completed, and its form is within the Human Tissue Bill that we are considering today. With regard to the issue of presumed consent, clearly, that has been given serious consideration. The principle of this Bill, however, is informed consent.
  We have looked closely at the experience of other countries with presumed consent, and while there may be a legal framework of presumed consent, the practice in all countries—Spain is highlighted as a country in which presumed consent is considered to have led to increased rates of organ donation—is that relatives are asked for their permission for organ donation to go ahead. If they object, that permission is not given. It is also necessary to approach relatives for health screening purposes, in case anything in the recent history of an individual could lead to infection if an organ were given to another person.
  The evidence that has emerged is that the structures that are set in place are what enable organ donation to happen: for example, having nurses or others who can approach relatives at critical points to secure organ donation. We have used the example of places such as Spain in our transplant framework, we have set in train those structures in this country, and we are already seeing improvements in organ donation rates. All the evidence is that that is the way to improve organ donation, and not through a system of presumed consent.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: The Minister rightly stresses the importance of informed consent. What measures is she taking to ensure that more people give that consent? We could do much more to increase the number of people on the donor register. And what can be done to give effect to consent? Many
  988
  organs are wasted because action is not taken quickly enough following deaths. Current common law does not allow some forms of elective ventilation; perhaps, in certain circumstances, they could be granted legislative approval.
  Ms Winterton: We aim to have 16 million people on the register by 2010. Moreover, the Bill contains measures allowing organs to be preserved so that relatives can be approached within a specific period, and others providing that the wishes of those who have indicated that they want their organs to be donated must be respected. We must deal with the practicalities, however, and relatives will always be asked for information about a person's recent social history. We cannot claim that the Bill will solve everything, but it does contain provisions relating to the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Surely the Spanish experience shows that a system of presumed consent can be operated in an entirely sensitive way, and that families can be consulted and their wishes considered, but on a different basis from that which obtains here. The Spanish system assumes at the outset that there are no strong objections, which has resulted in a rate of cadaver donations more than twice as high as ours. The change was not drastic, but it has proved to be very significant. Meanwhile, we are left with one of the worst records in western Europe: we have a serious shortage of organ donors and donations.
  Ms Winterton: The right hon. and learned Gentleman assumes that the legal framework in Spain has brought about the current position there. The former director of the National Organ Commission in Spain has clearly stated that the increase in the number of donations has been achieved not by anything to do with presumed consent, but by the structures that we are replicating here.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman should also bear in mind that following outrage among some families about practices that had taken place, France returned to a system of informed consent. Some people felt that consent might have been presumed but not verified, which caused enormous distress. We strongly favour the principles of informed consent underlying the Bill, combined with the other measures that I have described.
  Dr. Evan Harris: I hope the Minister will accept that there is some debate about her recitation of history in the context of France, and also that there is a genuine argument to be had about presumed consent and opting in versus opting out. Many professionals believe the evidence suggests that it is a significant factor.
  The system proposed by, among others, the British Medical Association, is used in Belgium, where there is strong evidence that it has made a difference. It does involve relatives being asked for the social history, so it is a straw dog otherwise, and strong objections are taken into account under that system of presumed consent.
  Ms Winterton: As I have said, relatives' objections are always taken into account and are rarely overridden.

  989
  We are talking about the rights of individuals, not just those of the state. The state does not own a human body; nor do doctors or scientists. It is up to individuals to choose whether to make this important gift, for it is a gift. We must respect their wishes. We must give them as much information as possible about the benefits of organ donation, but ultimately it is a matter of individual choice. We must empower people to make that choice, but we do not feel that it is for the state to dictate, or to presume that it has a right to someone's body if that person does not want to proceed.
  As I have said, there was considerable uncertainty about the law, and we conducted a great deal of consultation. In July 2002, jointly with the National Assembly for Wales, we published the consultation document "Human Bodies, Human Choices". We published the results of our consultation with a wide range of interested groups and individuals in April 2003, and presented broad legislative proposals in September. We then held a further round of stakeholder meetings with families, clinicians, researchers, heads of royal colleges and anatomic and other organisations including the BMA, the Retained Organs Commission, the Wellcome Trust, UK Transplant, the Human Genetics Commission and the National Assembly's organ retention advisory group.
  Mr. Lansley: The Minister will know that in April 2003 her predecessor, responding to a debate in the House, undertook that a draft Bill would be published before the summer recess. Notwithstanding the Minister's belief that the Bill clarifies the law, it has not been clarified as much as many people—including members of the organisations she just mentioned—hoped it would be. Pre-legislative scrutiny is designed expressly for that purpose. Why was a draft Bill not published for pre-legislative scrutiny, as was intended?
  Ms Winterton: I know it was hoped that time would be found for the publication of a draft Bill, but unfortunately that was not possible. That is why we published our broad legislative proposals in September, and held a further round of meetings. The organisations referred to by the hon. Gentleman, such as family support groups, want us to get on with establishing a legislative framework. The House will have an opportunity to debate the proposals, and they will be scrutinised in Committee. Given the broad consensus that emerged during extensive consultations, we decided that this was the best way of making our proposals law as quickly as possible. As a result of that work, we are proposing the Bill today.
  Part 1 deals with consent. We propose a comprehensive framework in which principles of consent will apply to all medical uses of human bodies, organs and tissue and to public display. We can therefore move forward in the knowledge that proper legal and ethical standards will apply to all circumstances in which tissue can be kept and used for the public benefit. The same principles will apply to the removal, keeping and use of tissue following post-mortem, and to the keeping and use of tissue from living patients. Except to the extent necessary to maintain the integrity of the coroner's investigation or the criminal justice system, the decision will lie first and foremost with the individual.
  990
  The role of the family or person closest to the deceased, where the individual's wishes were not given before his or her death, will be made clear and explicit, and there will be offences for keeping or using tissue or organs without consent.
  Clause 1 provides that consent will be needed for carrying out a hospital post-mortem, and that it will be needed for the subsequent keeping or use of tissue or organs for transplantation, research, education and training. For certain particularly sensitive purposes—the donation of the whole body to a medical school teaching anatomy for anatomical examination or for public display, as in Professor von Hagens' "Bodyworlds" exhibition—the prior personal consent of the individual will always be required. The Bill will not interfere with the coroner's authority to order a post-mortem for his purposes, related to establishing the cause of death, or with his power to ask for tissues or organs to be retained, should they be needed, for his purposes. That is made clear in clause 9.
  Harry Cohen: I saw the exhibition to which the Minister refers, as did many thousands of other people. It was informative, interesting and could be viewed in some respects as an exhibition of art—however gruesome some people might consider it. Do the Minister's comments mean that the exhibition would have been banned in this country?
  Ms Winterton: Such an exhibition would be allowed to go ahead if it had been properly licensed and if the prior consent of each deceased person had been properly obtained.
  Where tissue is taken from living patients, some purposes are so bound up with general diagnostic and clinical care that the consent that the patient gives to the procedure itself can be regarded as consent to those other purposes. These are set out in part 2 of schedule 1 and include clinical audit, quality control and on-the-job training in the laboratory. Separate consent will not be needed in those cases or for public health monitoring where tissue taken from living patients is used—unlinked and anonymised—for epidemiological studies. Those issues were discussed extensively with representatives of the medical and research communities as the proposals for the Bill developed.
  Although consent will not be needed for those particular uses, it will be good practice nevertheless to ensure that patients are aware that such uses might be made of their tissue or samples. That could include, for example, notices in waiting rooms or leaflets from outpatients, as set out in Department of Health guidance. However, consent from patients will be needed for further uses of tissue, by which we mean all material that contains cells—except hair and nail, which are regarded as disposable—such as for research, education and transplantation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) asked about consent. Appropriate consent identifies whose consent is relevant in the circumstances, not what is needed by way of consent. It can come from an individual, nominated representative or next of kin, as I shall explain more fully later.

  991
  Failing to obtain consent—whether from patients themselves or, in the case of the deceased, from other appropriate people—may be a criminal offence and subject to penalty. I say "may" because there will be safeguards to ensure that people cannot commit an offence inadvertently. For example, it is not intended that individual researchers be subject to the licensing requirements and they will not, in fact, themselves retrieve the tissue from patients. They will probably receive it from others, perhaps a tissue bank. In those circumstances, the researcher could quite reasonably rely on the regulated system to deliver tissue that has the appropriate consent for the purpose.
  Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the Minister for being so generous in giving way. I wish to be clear about the question posed by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon). The Bill defines appropriate consent and therefore qualifies what consent means, but the definition of consent is effectively left to the code set out by the Human Tissue Authority. If the House wants to qualify the consent process to make it acceptable, it will need to do more with the Bill to make that happen.
  Ms Winterton: As the hon. Gentleman says, the Human Tissue Authority will issue further guidance on that matter. It is true that the Bill does not set out precisely what form consent should take in any particular situation. The Bill gives statutory effect to the current requirement for consent. It would be unrealistic to imagine that we could set all that out in primary legislation. Consent to treatment, for example, is a current common law requirement, which is subject to quite extensive guidance from the Department of Health, the General Medical Council, the British Medical Association and the Medical Research Council, which also deal with the need for consent before taking tissue for research purposes. The regulatory body established by the Bill will issue a code of practice on obtaining consent. Clearly, that will have to be pragmatic.
  In some cases—for example, where tissue might be kept for some time—the fact that consent has been given needs to be recorded for future reference; and in many cases, as when blood samples are given, consent may be verbal or even a gesture such as holding out an arm. For surgical procedures, however, consent is likely to be recorded on a signed form. In all cases, consent will need to meet the general requirement that it is properly informed and freely given.
  The process of seeking and obtaining consent will reflect current good practice and need not be onerous, even where consent for research use is being considered. We know that people overwhelmingly support the use of surplus tissue for research. We are, in effect, setting out in the Bill what is already current good practice—for example, in the GMC guidelines. Moreover, as at present, research ethics committees will continue to have a role in considering whether legal and ethical standards have been met in the context of the specific projects that they consider.
  Dr. Evan Harris: On the question of authorised consent for transplantation, it is clear from clause 3 that
  992
  pre-morbid consent by the individual constitutes the consent and that—quite rightly, in my view—it is inappropriate for relatives to be allowed to veto it. Is it the Minister's understanding that the current donor card represents written and "appropriate consent", and that the current practice of relatives being allowed to veto that donor card request should therefore be discontinued as a matter of course, even in a minority of cases?
  Ms Winterton: I am not familiar with the wording on my donor card, but I shall certainly look into the issue to see whether any changes need to be made.
  Nick Harvey: Perhaps I can help the Minister. I have my donor card with me, which states,
  "Please let your relatives know your wishes, and keep this card with you at all times."
  Ms Winterton: That is the point. In such circumstances we can make absolutely clear what we expect to happen, but if relatives have to be consulted for screening purposes—in this day and age, that is increasingly important—and they choose to withhold that information, problems can arise. We must accept that there will always be some circumstances in which we cannot move forward as we would like.
  Dr. Iddon: My hon. Friend is being very patient in giving way. Researchers are extremely worried about future research that they may need to conduct. Will she assure them that they will have access to such tissue through the "appropriate consent" form, which was signed by the individual in question, or their relatives, way back in history? Researchers are concerned that they may be about to commit a criminal act by examining tissue for research, when consent was not gained for such a research application.
  Ms Winterton: It will be important to distinguish between removing a person's organs for transplantation purposes, where the screening issue is clearly vital, and consent in respect of a deceased person. In the latter circumstances, different considerations might have to be taken into account. As I have said, the Bill will simply adopt and make clear existing best practice. That should reassure the medical research community, and the proposals need give it no cause for anxiety.
  The Bill also introduces a new element to the question of consent. It provides that an individual may nominate another person to take decisions about tissue and organ retention, storage and use after his or her death. Where a person has not made their own wishes known and has not nominated another person, such responsibility will then revert to the next of kin, who would be empowered to take those decisions. Their consent would be needed, in contrast with the rather unclear formulation in the current human tissue legislation.
  There is one other aspect of consent and part 1 that I should deal with before I move on. Clause 7 deals with tissue that is already held—what the Bill refers to as "existing holdings". This is tissue and organs currently stored from a variety of sources and for various purposes. The Bill simply provides for this to be lawfully

  993
  kept and used. A pragmatic approach to the treatment of currently held tissue is vital. There is immense value in current archives, and it is important that we allow research options to remain open; but at the same time, respectful and appropriate disposal should take place where necessary. We have therefore provided for the new Human Tissue Authority to give guidance on the use and disposal of such tissue. Careful guidance from the Department is already in place. It was subject to lengthy consultation with researchers, families and other groups. That can assist in providing for a sensible approach to the future use of current archives.
  Members will doubtless realise that anything more than a cursory view of this issue will show how complex and sensitive it is. Part 2 therefore proposes a regulatory system to oversee the implementation of this overarching legislation.
  Mr. David Wilshire: I should point out that I hope to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, although not on this specific point. Before the Minister leaves the subject of consent, I draw her attention to clause 2, which deals with appropriate consent in respect of children. The Bill defines children as those under 18, and clause 2(4) states:
  "Where the child concerned has died and the activity involves storage for use, or use, for the purpose of anatomical examination…'appropriate consent' means his consent in writing."
  In other words, we are talking about not the parents' consent, but the child's "in writing". How will we handle the need for specimens from infants, who are not yet able to understand and cannot, therefore, give consent themselves?
  Ms Winterton: We are talking about anatomy—the dissection of whole bodies—which is why we have said that specific prior consent is needed. But the Anatomical Society has made it very clear to us that it is not the practice for examinations such as those to which the hon. Gentleman refers to take place on small children. The children referred to under that clause will be linked to the "Gillick test", to see whether they are able to give that consent
  The new Human Tissue Authority will be given the task of ensuring that the use of whole bodies, tissue and organs is regulated, in keeping with the legal and ethical standards that we have come to expect.
  Clause 13 sets out the licensing role of the authority. As I have said before, it will also be necessary to license the use of bodies for public displays such as the "Bodyworlds" exhibition. The authority will consist of members appointed by the Secretary of State and will issue codes of practice. It will have the power to vary, revoke or suspend licences where the necessary conditions have not been met. In establishing the new authority, we are streamlining the regulatory arrangements already in place. Regulation of tissue banks, which is likely to become mandatory under the proposed EU tissue directive, will be carried out by the new authority.
  Dr. Iddon: I am grateful to the Minister for her continuing patience in giving way. My understanding is that the Bill licenses an individual who is the custodian
  994
  of the tissue collection. How will an institution be able to continue if, for whatever reason, that person either dies or leaves the institution suddenly?
  Ms Winterton: The licence will continue through the person to whom it is then transferred. The Human Tissue Authority will issue guidance on exactly how that process will be continued.
  Clause 44 will contribute to expanding the scope for transplants by making it clear that steps may be taken to preserve organs while it is established whether there is consent to donation for transplantation. Clause 29 extends the current prohibition on commercial dealing in tissue under the Human Organ Transplants Act 1989. Clauses 46 and 47 make it an offence to have human material with intent to analyse its DNA without consent or for certain specified purposes. That provision responds to a recommendation of the Human Genetics Commission.
  Finally, under clause 49, the Bill will allow certain national museums to de-accession human remains—that is, to move them out of their collections; for example, in response to claims from the descendants of indigenous people. The statutory constitution of those museums currently prevents them from de-accessioning such remains, even where they may want to do so. Removing that barrier will fulfil a commitment that the Prime Minister made jointly with John Howard, at a meeting in July 2000, that they would increase efforts to repatriate human remains to Australian indigenous communities.
  The Bill provides a comprehensive response to a range of issues that have caused grief and distress to individuals, families and communities, but that have also created uncertainty among our medical and research communities. There is no doubt that many people suffered when they discovered that the organs of their loved ones had been kept without their knowledge. That must not happen again, and the aim of the Bill is to ensure that it does not. At the same time, we must create a framework to support research and development in science and medicine. With this Bill we can restore confidence and move from a difficult past to a stable and progressive future, and I commend it to the House.
  2.31 pm
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the Minister of State for taking so many interventions and for beginning the process of considering the Bill with some care. I am sure that the House is grateful for the care with which she went through some aspects of the measure.
  It is more than four years since the then chairman of the Association of Community Health Councils first raised concerns about the unauthorised retention and use of human tissue. Of course, the CHCs are no longer with us to undertake that function. Shortly after that, as the Minister said, as evidence was being gathered for the inquiry into the tragic deaths of children at Bristol royal infirmary, it became clear that tissue and organ banks had been set up at many other places, in many cases without proper consent. Indeed, the Redfern report on Alder Hey set out the especially shocking extent, in that case, of the clandestine acquisition of human organs, especially children's organs.

  995
  As the Minister said, the chief medical officer's report, in 2000–01, illustrated the wide extent of organ and tissue retention. It is proper to say that the vast majority of cases had nothing of the clandestine character of the acquisition and retention of tissue demonstrated at Alder Hey, but were pursued according to what was regarded as normal practice. That is why we must be so careful to get the structure of the legislation right; we must ensure that normal practice has changed, continues to change and is properly buttressed by law.
  It was not due only to the events at Alder Hey and Bristol that the retention of organs gave rise to considerable distress. Many Members from all parts of the country will share my experience in my constituency and will have met families of those whose relatives' organs or tissues were retained without consent or, in some instances, directly contrary to their expressed wishes. One of my constituents told me of the loss of their son in a road accident in 1984. At the time, they did not wish any of his organs to be retained after the coroner's post-mortem and were assured by the undertaker that that was the case and that their son had been buried intact. Members will thus appreciate the family's distress when they made inquiries—at the time of the press reports on the Alder Hey findings—and found that Addenbrookes hospital, in my constituency, had in fact retained their son's appendix. After systematic collection and examination of the hospital records—as the chief medical officer required of hospitals—the family found that not only had their son's appendix been retained, but also his thymus. On successive occasions, many years later, they had to arrange further interment of their son's remains. Their concerns and suspicion about whether their son had been buried with his brain are unresolved, as there are no longer any records that would give them that information.
  Addenbrookes is a major teaching hospital so there was a substantial number of such retained tissue and organs, and a support network was set up by the affected families. I met them in late 2001 and since then have tried to work on their behalf to have legislation introduced. My colleagues and I are thus very much in favour of the principles behind the Bill and the desirability of proceeding with it. What has impressed me about my constituents has been their willingness to go beyond the pain and distress caused by the fact that tissues were retained and organs had to be buried. They want to ensure that such things never happen again and are working with the Retained Organs Commission and in the consultations to which the Minister referred so that the structure is right for patients and for families in the future. There will be much debate on the measure and I shall refer later to the many questions that arise about the detail of the Bill, and I hope that the House will recognise that we would be committing a disservice to those families if we did not maintain our determination that, in future, the retention of organs should be undertaken only with fully informed consent.
  As a constituency Member, I have represented not only the families of patients whose tissues and organs were retained but also the researchers, because much medical research is carried out in Cambridge. There was thus a difficult balance for me to strike when I discussed
  996
  the case that I mentioned earlier, which was covered in the Isaacs report, with both the constituent and the pathologist in question. It was perfectly clear that, in the majority of cases, pathologists had no malign intent; they were working according to what they believed was, in effect, normal practice in many parts of the national health service—retaining organs on the basis that they would be of value for future research, which, in the case covered by the Isaacs report, was a brain bank for research into mental illness. The pathologists believed that the practice was desirable and, as they explained, they did not want to put families through the pain and distress of having to consent to the retention of organs. However, they put those families through much pain and distress, and I hope that many people who had no malign intent at the time accept that what happened was wholly wrong and must not happen in the future.
  We must strike that balance of which I was only too aware. We need to ensure that there is a supply of tissues and organs for transplantation and research, but without prejudicing the principle of fully informed consent. We need a new legal structure. As the Minister said, it must incorporate the previous structure relating to anatomy, anatomical examination and anatomists.
  It is fair to say that we are not working on the basis of abuse by anatomists, but that we want to incorporate them in a consistent legislative structure, with an additional regulatory structure that provides the necessary assurances.
  I want to repeat a point about which I intervened on the Minister earlier. I have pressed for legislation on this matter since 2002, and have asked Ministers about the progress being made. The Minister said that it was agreed that a fundamental review of the law was needed before legislative proposals were introduced, but it was always clear that the matter was urgent. The chief medical officer's first recommendation was that the Human Tissue Act 1961 needed urgent amendment, to enforce the requirement for consent. That did not happen because a legal framework was required, but the urgency noted by the CMO was not negated.
  We have been asking for that legislation since 2002, and the Government accepted that the provisions should be introduced as soon as possible. Colleagues in all parties believe that these provisions would have been suitable for pre-legislative scrutiny, and I am disappointed that that has not happened. Pre-legislative scrutiny turns the principles and intended purposes of legislative proposals into draft form, so that all parties concerned with the practicalities of a piece of legislation, and its future interpretation, can determine whether a Bill will serve its purpose.
  The draft version of this Bill should have been published in July, but was in fact published in December. Now, in mid-January, the royal colleges, the Council of Heads of Medical Schools, the Wellcome Trust and other bodies are saying that the draft proposals are too complicated and do not give the necessary assurances and clarity. Proper pre-legislative scrutiny would have put that right.
  Perhaps we can solve those problems in Committee. This debate is not about the programme motion, but the Minister is asking the House to complete consideration of the Bill by three weeks from today. That means that we will have to get on with it, and there will not be much

  997
  time for evidence to be taken. I am sure that the Minister will not chide me for reminding her that I asked before Christmas for a Special Standing Committee to be set up. I wanted not to delay the Bill, but to ensure that we could take evidence from some of the organisations involved. There are not many of them, but their evidence could have helped with the way in which the Bill was drafted. However, the Minister wanted to expedite the Bill's passage through the House, and felt that a Special Standing Committee would not be appropriate. I am sorry about that, as I think that that approach would have been better.
  We must get the scrutiny of the Bill right, and we have only three weeks in which to do it. A number of organisations do not believe that the Bill is as clear as it should be. I have mentioned the Royal College of Pathologists, which was closely involved in the workshops and consultation that took place last year. It maintains that the Bill lacks clarity, and that it fails to establish a structure that ensures that appropriate consent is sought by health care professionals, on whom pathologists subsequently have to rely. That is an interesting point, and the consultation did not deal with it adequately. We must make sure that the necessary consents are taken, on behalf of pathologists, at the front line of the health care system. Pathologists will be at risk if the consents taken for the retention of tissues and organs do not serve the purposes of researchers. Front-line health care professionals must be given an appropriate structure for taking consents.
  The RCP also questions the extent of the record-keeping and information-flow requirements that will he needed as a result of the consent process. The estimate is that 3 million solid-tissue samples, and ten times as many blood samples, will be involved. It is clear that, even with the information management and technology programme in the NHS, it will be intensely difficult to manage information flows on that scale. In the immediate future, consent for the use of many tissues and organs may take the form of a written note but. for data protection reasons, those records will not necessarily be available to researchers. We must ensure that the consents will be passed on to researchers in a way that makes sense.
  The RCP makes constructive points in relation to about one third of the total number of clauses contained in the Bill. I hope that the Standing Committee can reflect the college's close interest in the matter, and its constructive approach.
  The Council of Heads of Medical Schools also questions the clarity of the Bill. It is concerned about the scope for the code of practice to be extended into statutory requirements that might give rise to penalties if the code is breached. That is, a breach of the code might amount to an offence that carries a criminal penalty. I know that the Minister has said that we must not worry, as the code of practice will be based on current best practice. However, we need to ensure that that best practice is adequately translated into the code of practice, and we must then consider the code alongside the Bill.
  Codes of practice are often published with the Bills to which they refer, but the relevant code for this Bill is not available yet. In particular, we need that part of the code that deals with the retention of human tissues and organs. That is very important, but there is a substantial
  998
  difference between what is current best practice and what actually happens. Under the Bill, people who fail to comply with the code of practice may expose themselves to prosecution for a criminal offence. I hope that, when he responds to the debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), will assure the House that we will be able to see the draft code of practice as the Bill proceeds through the House. In that way, hon. Members can be reassured on this matter.
  The heads of the medical schools also say that they do not consider the Bill to be in line with the practicalities of clinical medicine and pathology. We will want to test that proposition in Committee, as we must achieve congruence in that respect.
  The Wellcome Trust has raised a number of concerns with hon. Members. One problem is the risk of criminalising currently legitimate research, especially in connection with the new offence of testing DNA. It is also concerned about the definition of DNA analysis in this context. I hope that, with the help of greater experts on this matter than me, we can make progress on that matter in Committee and determine how to deal with it.
  The Wellcome Trust also wants assurances about the provision for consultation by the Human Tissue Authority, a point that relates to what I said about codes of practice. It is also keen for the House to be able to put under proper scrutiny what the authority proposes. As I understand it, the authority will be able, through its code of practice, to extend the definition of what constitutes a criminal offence. We need to be sure that the House understands what is intended to be a criminal offence, and what is not.
  The Bioindustry Association has raised a concern for which I have some sympathy, although we must be careful in our response to it. The Bill retains the provision that makes trafficking in human material and body parts a criminal offence, but the association is worried that currently legitimate commercial activities could be criminalised. Those activities involve research using human tissues, or transferring those tissues between organisations. I want to be sure that the Bill recognises that there is a commercial element to research, and I think that the Under-Secretary of State was probably engaged in such commercial activity at one time. It must not be criminalised, as it makes a vital contribution to the development of new therapeutic methods and drugs. We must be sure that we are not trespassing on legitimate research.
  It will be apparent that many of the concerns that have been raised are about maintaining the extent and quality of medical research, clinical investigation or education. We have to achieve a balance between the necessity of securing fully informed consent and the desirability of supporting medical research. However, I want the Minister to be aware that such concerns do not derive only from medical research organisations and those working in pathology. Conservative Members, too, want to examine some issues more carefully.
  On the definition of consent, we need to be sure that we are clear about who gives consent and under what circumstances, and that consent is given for the specific purposes that are set out in schedule 1, which deals with purposes normally requiring consent. Sometimes specific purposes are consented to, while in some

  999
  circumstances it is reasonable that generic consent could be given to the whole range of scheduled purposes to prevent people from stepping into criminal activity at a later stage.
  We also need to be clear, as I suggested to the Minister in the Adjournment debate on 29 April, that, especially from the point of view of families of those who have died, the consent that is given relates to specific kinds of tissues or organs. In the past, people often gave their consent to the retention of tissues because it had been explained to them that that would be necessary for the purposes of the post-mortem analysis to establish the cause of death, and they understood that that might be necessary in relation to bodily fluids, for example, but they were not thinking of major organs.
  This morning, Dr. Mark Wolpert of the Wellcome Trust made a similar point from the standpoint of medical research, saying that there was often a distinction in the minds of families between the retention of small amounts of tissue such as skin, blood or fluid samples and major organs. Indeed, from the point of view of researchers there is an order of magnitude of difference between the retention of tissue samples and of whole organs. In that context, if we require detailed consent, the maintenance of records, and returning to families tissue blocks and slides for small amounts of tissue, compliance will be highly burdensome.
  Nobody, whether in the medical research world or in the families concerned, wants a system whereby to be sure that one has legal cover, front-line health care staff will have to ask for consent for the retention of relevant human material for all the purposes in schedule 1. The explanation that is given to families may not necessarily make it clear that whole, sometimes major, organs are going to be retained. We have to avoid reaching that position. We therefore need to think hard about whether we can build into the Bill or the code of practice a provision that distinguishes where major organs will be retained so that families understand that before any organs are taken from their loved ones. The "Human Bodies, Human Choices" consultation specifically addressed that. The Government have decided not to set off down that path, but I hope that they will reconsider, because the phrase "relevant human material" does not adequately convey the variety of organs and tissues that require specific consent.
  In due course, wherever possible, consent should be given in an explicit fashion in relation to major organs and the process should normally be related to specific purposes. However, in order to relieve the burden on medical research, we might be able to contemplate generic consent for other tissues and samples in relation to the whole set of scheduled purposes.
  The issue of nominated representatives needs to be dealt with, because it is not yet sufficiently clear. The spouse and partner question in the Bill is linked to other legislation that is forthcoming this year, and I hope that we can clarify the relationship between them. Grandparents are not currently reflected in the structure of qualifying relationships; that has been mentioned to me by at least one hospital.
  1000
  Then there is the question of arbitration. As the Bill stands, if those in a qualifying relationship and more than one person at the same rank in the qualifying relationship differ, the consent of one could be accepted even if it was contrary to the wishes of the other. We need to be certain that that is what we intend. Complicated family arrangements might surround a person who has died. In a dispute about qualifying relationships, not many people in the health service will want to be responsible for arbitrating who is in what qualifying relationship to an individual and how they should be ranked in all the circumstances that can apply. We should consider whether we can give those NHS staff an easy way in which to pass the problem on to some form of independent arbitration, perhaps even to the Human Tissue Authority, thereby absolving the health service of the responsibility. Failing that, the situation could seriously interfere with the relationship between the clinical team and the family of someone being treated.
  This House should determine the possible extent of a criminal offence—it should not be left to the Human Tissue Authority—and I hope that we can do that in the course of our scrutiny of the Bill. I also hope, notwithstanding the desire to achieve a seriously enforced regulatory system, that we can minimise the burden imposed by the licensing requirement, which could otherwise be very substantial. We heard about some of the difficulties involved in the question of who a licensed designated individual is, how that is passed on to others, where the premises to which it applies are, and so on. The licensing process itself may be relatively straightforward, but the requirement to go back to the Human Tissue Authority to notify variations in the licensing may be so burdensome that it adds many thousands of pounds per year to the cost, because there will be somebody working more or less full time to tell the authority which individuals have entered or left a pathology department, which parts of a hospital are the appropriate premises for such purposes, which purposes are being acted on and what kinds of tissues are involved. The structure may become very complex if we do not try to ensure that it is minimised.
  On consent, the code of practice should allow families and patients sometimes not to receive information. That was part of the consultation, and I know that the Government have it in mind, but it is not reflected in the Bill. There must be a way in which families can be offered the full information that ought to accompany consent, but are not required to have it, in order subsequently to protect those who have received tissues and organs that were so consented.
  The Bill provides a necessary reform to which we can give our support. The system has to be clear and practical and has to be built on the principle of consent. I will not seek to direct my colleagues on how to think or vote about this issue when the time comes—they will be able to make those judgments for themselves.
  On presumed consent, I share the Minister's view that the evidence from Spain, on which I have corresponded, does not necessarily point so much to a structure of presumed consent as to an efficient and effective structure of organisation in hospitals to provide information and to form a basis on which consent is freely given. Let us leave that to one side. My personal

  1001
  view is that in a Bill whose purpose is to make the giving of organs the subject of a positive decision based on fully informed consent, the concept of presumed consent does not count as consent at all. It is directly contrary to the underlying principle of the Bill. I would find it difficult to say to the public, "Under all normal circumstances, if you want to assist medical progress in the future, we have to explain in great detail to you what will happen and obtain your consent, but if you want to assist medical intervention now, we can just take the organs and presume that you have given consent." That is inconsistent.
  Mr. Dalyell: Is the hon. Gentleman likely to oppose the Bill that will be presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on 3 February? Does he recollect that the Conservative party used to have very different views? I presented a ten-minute Bill on 18 May 1971. As usual, hon. Members filed out of the Chamber, but one colleague who remained to hear what I said was the then Prime Minister, Ted Heath. Two days later he told me that he was sympathetic to my cause but that I would never persuade Keith Joseph. What is the Conservative party's position, a third of a century later, on presumed consent?
  Mr. Lansley: I understand that the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) will present a ten-minute Bill and I try, whenever possible, not to oppose leave to bring in a Bill. If it makes progress, we would then consider it substantively. The implication of my views is, however, that I would also oppose her Bill on principle at Second Reading, if we ever reached that stage. I would also oppose the introduction of presumed consent to the Bill before us. That is a personal view, although I think that it is shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison), who is in his place on the Front Bench. It is an ethical point of view: we believe that presumed consent is inconsistent with the principle that we should allow people to decide themselves whether and for what purpose their bodies and organs are used. The Minister made the same point.
  I do not pretend that my view is the uniform view of the Conservative party. We may discover later that my right hon. and hon. Friends have different views—
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke indicated assent.
  Mr. Lansley: I look forward to hearing that argument, because I know that it will be presented as effectively as an argument can be.
  I hope that in the next three weeks we can provide an assurance to those who have suffered in the past that it will not happen again—as the Minister said. I hope that we can allay the many concerns of those who believe that excessive burdens might be imposed on medical research, education and training as a result. I hope that we can legislate for a regulatory structure and that we can be reasonably certain that normal practice in health care will not develop over time so that the bureaucratic compliance requirements of the legislation are met, but the substance of what was intended is avoided. We would do better if some of the changes that I have mentioned were included in the Bill, so that we focus on
  1002
  the substance of giving informed consent and understand the emotional implications of doing so, especially for the loved ones of those who have recently died. I hope that we can also ensure that if there are those who treat human tissue negligently or maliciously, the regulatory structure will ensure that they cannot continue to do so for years, as happened in the past. On that basis, I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading, with the intention of being appropriately critical during subsequent consideration.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): The opening speeches have taken a little longer than anticipated. No time limit was imposed on Back Benchers' speeches, but we may now have a difficulty with time. It would be appreciated if hon. Members tried to be as concise as possible.
  3.5 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: I welcome the Bill, for which I must take some responsibility. I met the Bristol parents and listened to their arguments, and I decided to establish the inquiry into what had happened to their children. That set in train the process that revealed the extent and nature of the massive holdings of human tissue across the NHS. It struck me in those meetings that while the Bristol parents were concerned to find out what had happened to their children, they also wanted to ensure that arrangements were put in place to prevent it from ever happening again. That needs to be the theme of today's debate.
  The Bill seeks to update, codify and clarify the law on the retention of human tissue by health professionals for the purposes of research and training. It is based on the concept that those professionals should be required to obtain the informed consent of the individual whose body parts may be used, or their parent, parents or representatives, in place of the practice in the past, when health professionals sought simply to demonstrate the lack of objection. We must not pretend that the process of securing consent is simple or easy for anyone involved. A patient who faces a dangerous operation may be reluctant to hear questions about what should be done with their body if the operation fails. The professionals involved may also, for obvious reasons, be reluctant to put such questions. If someone has been seriously injured in an accident and then dies, the doctors and nurses may be exhausted, upset and disappointed that they failed to save a life. They will not be in a good state to approach distraught and heartbroken parents or other relatives. We can discuss the Bill in the cool, calm and collected atmosphere of the Chamber—at least, it is this afternoon—but that is not always the situation in hospital for patients, relatives or professionals.
  We owe it to all concerned to get the law right and, above all, to make it clear and easy to understand for those who will have to operate it. We should not forget that we propose to introduce criminal sanctions if they fail to comply with the law. We should do our level best to keep lawyers out of hospitals, except when they are there as patients. We need to make the law clear, so that

  1003
  it can be understood by those who have to implement it in difficult circumstances, day after day. We also need to try to keep down the bureaucratic burden.
  At the same time, we do not want to inhibit the use of human tissue for training and research. Health professionals need to be trained to understand the workings of the human body, and some of that understanding can be obtained only by studying parts of the human body—an organ or piece of tissue—from the inside. That is less necessary these days, because of technological change, but observation of diseased specimens, for example, is still crucial to the proper training of health professionals.
  I have real concerns about several threats to medical research. The Bill could be a threat to medical research if we were to get it wrong, but I do not think that we will do that. The animal rights lobby is clearly a threat to some research on animals that is intended to benefit human beings. The combined impact of rather frightened ethical committees and the data protection law already seems to be inhibiting several epidemiological studies.
  We cannot over-emphasise the importance of medical research on human tissues for the rest of us. For a start, such research helps us to identify specific illnesses and conditions. After such conditions are identified, the research enables professionals to understand their causes, and it is only after the causes are understood that professionals may come forward with a basis for the prevention or treatment of conditions. Medical research saves lives and relieves pain and suffering, and we must remember that it has gone on since time immemorial—from the Greeks studying anatomy to William Harvey discovering the circulation of the blood.
  I have a more recent example of the benefits that can flow from research. We are faced with variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, but the variant form of the disease was discovered only because of the post-mortem examination of the brains of people who had suffered from it. The later discovery that the disease was probably linked to bovine spongiform encephalopathy in cattle—although that is not certain even now—was possible only because of the post-mortem examination of brains. That evidence led to the enhanced slaughtering of cattle, which we hope has reduced the impact of CJD on the rest of the population.
  Such research is still going on, and requires the examination of not only the brains of those who have died from vCJD, but the brains of people who have died from classic CJD and other degenerative conditions of the brain, because comparing the two is one way of identifying specific characteristics that might eventually prove useful. If we are to deal with the condition, it is vital that we continue that research. Given those circumstances, it is necessary for relatives to be willing to allow the brains of their loved ones to be used for research in an effort to ensure that we prevent the condition affecting other people.
  We intend to make the law clearer on tissue taken from the dead and to make it clear that informed consent is required. However, as the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) said, we must ensure that such consent is wide and long-lasting so that
  1004
  after it has been given, further research that was not mentioned when it was given may be carried out. I do not imagine that many people would object to that.
  The Bill also deals with the subject of tissue taken from the living. I understand that consent has not been required for the study of such tissue up to now. The examination, study and analysis of cancerous growths taken from people during the treatment of their cancer have transformed our understanding of genetic and other aspects of the process and progress of cancer, which has meant that professionals have become more able to treat cancerous conditions. That progress would not have been made without the study of human tissue. The Bill will require consent to be given for such activities in future, so we must ensure that it is broad and long lasting.
  Few people know that samples of tonsils and appendices that were removed during routine operations have been held in slides throughout the country for decades. When I was Health Secretary, I was asked to authorise the study of the slides as an attempt to find out the prevalence of vCJD in the general population. If the material had not been held—it would otherwise have been discarded—such surveillance would not have been possible. We hope that the information that it provides will throw light on the progress of the disease because it has so far defied anyone's attempts to understand it. Will the Bill inhibit the retention of such material? I hope that it will not. I cannot possibly expect the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) to respond today to all the technical matters that I am raising, but we must consider them carefully.
  I was struck at the time that the examination of that material was subject to decisions by local ethical committees—there are more than 200 in the country. The process was time-consuming and unpredictable, so we should contemplate establishing a national ethical committee—perhaps, although not necessarily, through the Bill—that could decide on the ethical provenance, if that is the right word, of such national schemes so that progress could be made quickly if it seemed it were necessary.
  I have a further worry about the interpretation of rules on data protection by ethical committees. At present, programmes of the anonymous and totally unlinked sampling of blood and tissue exist as an attempt to establish the spread of HIV/AIDS. Some local ethical committees are concerned that such sampling could be contrary to data protection laws, so if that is the case we need the Bill to ensure that the data protection lot keep their noses out of it because the sampling is intended to benefit humanity generally. We must be clear about whether such a programme will be lawful if the sampling is anonymous. If the research is unlawful, society as a whole will be worse off.
  I raise a further detailed issue with the Under-Secretary. If I were to go into hospital and a blood sample were taken as part of my treatment, I understand that I would not need to give consent for any research that its pathology laboratory might carry out during my treatment. However, pathology laboratories, in the pursuit of quality standards, rightly organise sample testing to determine the standard of their analyses. If a test is run on a person's blood sugar level, the laboratory

  1005
  will examine a sample of blood sugar tests to check whether they are accurate. As such an activity would be research rather than treatment for a person's benefit, the Bill would require people to give research consent before the sampling could take place—I do not know whether that is the case but it is my interpretation of the Bill. We clearly do not intend for that to happen, so the Bill should make it clear that it will not.
  Professionals in my area are studying aneurisms that have burst and caused sudden death. There is little use in trying to study the aneurism of a person who has been the subject of an attempted surgical effort to keep them alive because it would undoubtedly be destroyed in the process. The professionals want to examine aneurisms that have been cut out of people's bodies during coroners' post mortems. As I understand it, the law currently says that a coroner can keep parts associated with the cause of death. If an aneurism was the cause of death, by keeping the tissue in which it occurred the coroner is doing something that is a straightforward part of their role. However, is relatives' consent needed to conduct research on aneurisms? How is that research to be carried out and how can we facilitate it?
  There are a number of detailed points that we need to consider, and no doubt others will make them. However, my main theme is that the Government and the professions need to bang the drum about the merits of crucial research on human tissues if we are to continue make progress in treating people. We must not let the monstrous activities of Gunther von Hagens at Alder Hey ruin medical progress. We must not get too carried away. We need to get that message across because, like the Bristol parents, most decent people would he happy for parts of their own or loved ones' bodies to be used for research if they were asked for permission and were confident that it would be of benefit to everyone.
  Willing consent is therefore a big step forward, but we must be clear about the aim of the legislation. We are introducing criminal sanctions in a difficult area, and there is a danger that we will inhibit research by placing too many bureaucratic restraints on people so that, as a result, they do not seek consent for taking tissue because it is simply too much bother. We need to avoid that consequence. As the Minister of State said at the outset, if we can create public confidence in the consent procedure and convince people that the research is worth while everyone will benefit. There are no party political differences about the Bill, and I hope that all the time available can be devoted to getting it right. However, more consultation will be needed with the Royal College of Pathologists, the Royal College of Physicians and others to try to make sure that we get the details right and achieve what we all want to achieve—a clear law that can be implemented by the people who are doing their job day in, day out, in difficult circumstances.
  3.22 pm
  Mr. Paul Burstow: I echo the remarks of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson)—a clear law that restores clarity to the issue will restore public confidence, thus enabling us to ensure that medical research and education continue to thrive and prosper. We do not want them to be damaged by the way in which the Bill
  1006
  may, or may not, work—something about which hon. Members on both sides of the House have voiced concern. Providing that clarity in the Bill will be the task of the Standing Committee.
  We ought to acknowledge the fact that in some ways the Bill is born of failure: first, the failure of drafting and scrutiny by those who framed the Human Tissue Act 1961; secondly, the failure of pathologists and physicians who allowed the retention of organs after post-mortem without the family's knowledge to become commonplace; and, thirdly, the failure of institutions and managers either to provide adequate oversight of staff or to act on complaints. The Alder Hey and Bristol inquiries paint an extremely disturbing picture. Parents buried their children without knowing that many of them had not had their organs returned. In some cases, they did not even know that organs had been removed. It is impossible to step into the shoes of the parents who were affected and fully understand their anger, pain and sense of betrayal.
  The chief medical officer's report on the census of organs and tissues retained by pathology services revealed that, while the malpractice of one particular pathologist was not the norm, poor practice and paternalistic attitudes were widespread. Over almost 30 years, 54,300 organs, body parts, stillbirths or foetuses were retained by pathology services. The census found that the vast majority of NHS trusts complied with the letter of the law and had signed forms of agreement from relatives. However, the Alder Hey inquiry and, indeed, the census found poor cataloguing and recording of retained tissues and organs in hospitals and university research collections. The distress caused to some families by second, third and fourth funerals must never be repeated.
  As the summit held by the chief medical officer in January 2001 revealed, many parents had no idea what had happened. Some were given inaccurate and misleading information, some were lied to and told that they were burying children with all their organs returned. I cannot pass up the opportunity to cite part of the transcript of the summit, as it sums up the feelings of many parents who spoke that day:
  "It almost was—I mean, if I could just use an analogy, it was almost like scrap cars being taken to a scrapyard. The cars were dismantled, the alternators were taken out, the batteries were taken out, put on a shelf, then when somebody comes along and wants one of those parts they pay for it. In the case of our children, they were disassembled completely. The organs were stored, never used."
  That is how one of the parents expressed their feelings and anger. The words, "never used" certainly stay in my memory. Their children's organs were poorly stored and, in some cases, left on a shelf. Even when they were used, the lack of accurate records meant that there was no feedback to the families on any research that was undertaken. There was therefore no opportunity to provide a modicum of comfort that the research had led to some good.
  The inquiries, census and summit led to the publication of 17 recommendations in a report by the chief medical officer entitled, "The Removal, Retention and Use of Human Organs and Tissue from Postmortem Examination" in 2001. The first recommendation, which has already been referred to,

  1007
  was to act immediately to amend the Human Tissue Act to remove any confusion between lack of objection and informed consent. That Act provides for a person to express their preferences in respect of the use of their body after death. In the absence of such an express wish, the onus is on the clinician to make such reasonable inquiries as are practicable to ascertain whether the surviving spouse or any other surviving relative objects to the removal of organs or tissue.
  The test was therefore lack of objection. However, there was a defect in the Act, as it was vague about clinicians' tasks and how hard they should try to obtain the views of patients and relatives. Parliament's intention was not so vague. In introducing Second Reading in December 1960, the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health said:
  "It is proposed to recommend hospital authorities to adopt the same procedure of obtaining consent of relatives where they are available in relation to the removal of any part of the body as authorised by this Bill."
  In other words, a requirement for consent formed part of Parliament's intentions when the Human Tissue Bill was debated in 1960. However, that requirement seems to have been lost. Indeed, the Parliamentary Secretary went on to say:
  "The hospital authorities will also be recommended to ask the available relatives whether they know of others who might object. Any relative will be able to object to the removal, and this will override the consent of any other relative … This is felt to be a wise precaution to avoid the risk of causing offence to the feelings of any known relatives."—[Official Report, 20 December 1960; Vol. 632, c. 1232–33.]
  That issue may be contentious today, but it was not debated further on Second Reading of the Human Tissue Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary made the position clear at the outset of the debate, so perhaps the drafting of the Bill and the lack of debate on consent are a reflection of the prevailing paternalism at the time. Although a recommendation to seek consent was made, a provision was not included in the Bill. It is academic now whether or not the Department of Health did, in fact, implement the Minister's words. The evidence of the inquiries and the census all points to a departure from the intended spirit of the law and, at best, an adherence to its letter. The Bill will put right the mistake of over 40 years ago by making it clear that consent must be obtained.
  One issue that struck me in preparing for the debate was the importance of sensitive support for families at the time of bereavement. That picks up the point of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras about the pressures on staff and on relatives and the emotions that emerge at that time. The report of the inquiry into children's heart surgery at Bristol royal infirmary identified the need to improve bereavement services in the NHS. That was covered in recommendation 12 of the CMO's report, which states:
  "All NHS Trusts should provide support and advice to families at the time of bereavement."
  It continues:
  "This support should include the services of a bereavement adviser, who can help families in the difficult period following death or where the situation allows to offer support through the dying process."
  1008
  However, the practice to date has been to ask relatives to authorise post-mortems shortly after death—in some cases, just after the news of death was broken.
  Treating family members with dignity and respect and discussing complex emotional issues, such as postmortems and the retention of tissues and organs, is difficult at the best of times, and I am told that it is poorly taught in medical training. Perhaps such training needs to be reviewed to ensure that it is the very best. Families need time to come to terms with their grief. When a post-mortem is suggested, unbiased information written in plain English and other languages should be supplied and support offered.
  NHS trusts have been required to designate a named individual to act as bereavement adviser since 2000, so what is the current position in respect of bereavement services? The answer is that it is patchy: some are good, some are average, some are bad and some are developing. That is my reading of the results of the bereavement services report produced by the Department of Health following its survey back in 2001. That report's conclusion says:
  "It is clear that every Trust does provide support to the bereaved in some form, but the extent of this support seems to vary. It is mentioned frequently that greater consistency could be achieved by training more (if not all) hospital staff in basic bereavement awareness and communication skills."
  The report's findings include the fact that fewer than half of NHS trusts had a dedicated member of staff to look after bereavement. Only 15 per cent. had a bereavement officer, and 20 per cent. said that they were doing well on issues relating to post-mortems and organ donation, while 7 per cent. said that they were not doing well. The report is silent about the other 73 per cent. of trusts. That should be a cause for concern.
  Almost a third of trusts said that their provision of follow-up support and visiting needs much improvement. It is no wonder therefore that the CMO in his progress report on his web pages says:
  "More work needs to be done to ensure that the provision of bereavement services is given the priority and attention that it needs."
  To be fair, the Bill's explanatory notes state that £2.7 million per annum has been included in the NHS baseline to develop bereavement services in 2003–04. Of course that is welcome, but it remains to be seen how it will work on the ground.
  The explanatory notes say that the funding is sufficient to develop services that will be compliant with the Bill. However, will that extend to developing the follow-up support and visiting services that are so important? Can the Minister say whether strategic health authorities will include the development of bereavement services in their performance management work? I understand that the Department is supposed to be undertaking a follow-up survey to find out how improvements are progressing. It would be useful to know the time scale for that work.
  One of the reasons why I raise bereavement support is that it goes to the heart of how we ensure that appropriate consent is achieved. Bereavement services that provide support in a helpful, informed and unbiased way can help people to reach decisions more easily. I raise that issue in particular because of a case that demonstrates that bereavement services have a long

  1009
  way to go. It occurred over the Christmas period at the St. Helier hospital, which is part of the Epsom and St. Helier NHS trust.
  The case was drawn to my attention by my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Cornwell, who were visiting a relative of theirs, Mrs. Howe. They were rung by the hospital at 4 pm on 3 January and told that her condition was deteriorating and that they should come soon to see her. They visited and stayed until 7 pm, and they said their goodbyes. When asked, the doctor said that what was meant by the word "deteriorating" was that their relative was dying. They went home, which was very nearby, but they had no call from the hospital after that.
  On Sunday 4 January, Mr. and Mrs. Cornwell decided to visit the hospital again, thinking that their relative was perhaps still alive—they wanted to see her again. They rang the hospital before setting out, and they were told by a junior staff nurse, after some discussions among the nursing and other teams at the hospital, that their relative had died at 9 pm the previous evening—two hours after they had left—and that they should contact the bereavement officer after 10 am on Monday. No information or counselling was provided and no suggestion was given as to what else they should do. They rang the bereavement office on Monday and told the person there that they had not been informed about the death, but had learned about it through their own positive action.
  The office took the details and phoned back that afternoon to say that there was concern about the cause of death and that there would need to be a post-mortem. It did not inform medical staff that the relatives had not been informed and it told the Cornwells that they should go to the ward to collect their relative's personal effects. I cite what happened, because it is an example of how things can go wrong. Even when the relatives were told about the need for a post-mortem, no reference was made to the fact that forms had to be signed or to the issues that the Bill is all about. That is why the system must be improved.
  To be fair to the trust, it has acknowledged that it made mistakes. In particular, it acknowledged three mistakes at a meeting that took place in my constituency this morning. The first was that, when the night duty nurse went to the ward on the Saturday, there was a misunderstanding from the duty nurse about whether the relatives had been informed of the death. A box was ticked, but there was no follow-up—not even when the relatives did not arrive and the body was moved to the mortuary. The bereavement office should have been informed by medical staff, but it was not. Therefore, it should not have told the Cornwells to pick up the personal effects. Finally, the trust did not provide all the information that it should have done to the Cornwells. It certainly failed to provide them with support.
  The trust has acknowledged the mistakes and is putting in place procedures, but they should have such procedures now. If the interim procedure is already in place, it should inform how such matters are dealt with today. The fact that it does not is a great cause of concern for me and for others.
  Transplantation is the second issue that I want to raise, and it has already been touched on in the debate. According to UK Transplant, the number of people
  1010
  waiting for organ transplants has increased by almost a third in the last 10 years. Today, 7,172 people need a lifesaving or life-changing transplant. Every year, nearly 400 people die waiting for a suitable organ to become available. They are the ones lucky enough to get on the transplant list in the first place.
  I understand from a press notice issued by UK Transplant that 10.9 million people have already pledged their organs for transplant by joining the NHS organ donation register. I can testify, having tried it out quite recently—perhaps having been stimulated by preparing for the debate—that it can take a matter of a few minutes, if that, to register one's intent to donate one's organs on death. I urge anyone to visit the website and to take the steps to doing just that.
  One question that must be asked about the Bill is whether it will help to tackle the serious shortfall between the number of people awaiting donor organs and the number of people taking the positive step of registering their willingness to be donors. Planning for one's own death is still something of a taboo subject in this country. We do not like to talk about that or our mortality. That deters people from taking the positive step of recording their wishes to donate.
  Polls have found that 70 per cent. of the population say that they are willing to donate their organs for transplantation after their death, yet just 15 per cent. formally register. One way—and I stress that it is one way—to bridge the gap between what people say they want to do and what they actually do would be to adopt a system of presumed consent. I stress that such a system of opting out would not mean that the views of relatives would be ignored, but it would change the nature of the discussion between the clinicians and members of the family that takes place at such a crucial point. The BMA briefing for the debate says:
  "most families do not discuss their wishes about donation and, when asked at the time of bereavement, many opt for the default position, which is not to donate. Studies show that many people later regret this decision."
  The worrying thing is that the refusal rate is increasing, so what is the current state of public opinion on the question of presumed consent? A survey commissioned by the Department of Health in 1999 found that 50 per cent. supported the current opt-in system and that 28 per cent. supported presumed consent, with 21 per cent. having no preference. Since then, two further surveys found that concern about the availability of organs for transplants has led to a shift in opinion. The National Kidney Research Fund discovered that 57 per cent of the persons sampled supported a system of presumed consent. The BMA system would allow organs to be removed for donation after a person's death unless the individual had registered an objection during his or her lifetime; or if it were clear from information provided by the spouse or partner—or where there is no spouse or partner, by a parent or child—that the individual had expressed an objection to donation that had not been officially registered; or if it were clear that the donation would cause major distress to the individual's partner or, where there is no partner, a parent or child. The BMA makes it plain that that arrangement would not apply to persons under the age of 16. I do not pretend that presumed consent alone would solve the shortage of donor organs but it should form part of a wider strategy to increase donation rates.

  1011
  I recognise that the issue is one of conscience for many right hon. and hon. Members. If during the passage of the Bill there is the opportunity to debate and vote on a suitable amendment, I hope that it will be the subject of a free vote. I certainly welcome the indication by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) that such an approach will be taken by the Conservatives. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and to develop the arguments for presumed consent.
  The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire mentioned the problem of defining human tissue and organs—an issue that he raised in an Adjournment debate last April. The chief medical officer's report stated that "tissue" had not been explained in the past. In particular, it was not made clear that it could include whole organs, especially in small babies. Most parents thought that the term meant small amounts of tissue for microscopic examination. Informed consent would require clear communication and shared understanding. The Bill ducks that issue. Definitions of tissue and organs should not be left to guidance or codes of practice alone. I hope that the Committee will debate and arrive at a consensus to move that aspect forward.
  The Royal College of Pathologists makes the point that while the Human Tissue Act 1961 is vague and misleading, the Bill is so tortuously worded that it will be incomprehensible to those who, under its regulations, will risk being exposed to penalties. The college suggests that schedule 1 should distinguish more clearly between activities for which consent would be mandatory and those not always requiring consent, as determined by the proposed Human Tissue Authority. I hope that the Minister will give some reassurances on that point when he winds up.
  Those who remove tissue from living patients will be expected to seek consent for all subsequent uses of it. Persons working in medical education or research, for example, will need to ascertain the material's consent status. Does the NHS have the capacity to take on that additional work and cost? The Royal College of Pathologists states that to record the explicit wishes of all patients in a manner that allows laboratory staff rapidly to retrieve relevant information on large numbers of patients will require investment in information technology that cannot reasonably be funded from existing NHS laboratory or hospital budgets. It is estimated that 3 million solid tissue samples are taken from living patients each year. Is the Minister confident that existing resources are sufficient to put in place the necessary systems to implement the spirit and letter of the law?
  If a doctor publishes a research paper in support of a hypothesis that includes pathological diagnoses culled from pathology reports, is a criminal offence committed if it transpires that in one of the cases, the consent for research box on the surgical consent form was not ticked? If an offence is committed, who commits it—the pathologist, the physician or the doctor who writes the paper?
  The Bill deals with many public concerns about the way in which organs and tissues are removed, retained and used. It is a vast improvement on the 1961 Act and
  1012
  it should receive a Second Reading. It took almost 40 years before the weaknesses in the 1961 Act were exposed. The Bill is not the subject of party political dispute and I hope that that will liberate the Standing Committee that examines it and allow it to do a genuine job of revision and improvement.
  Members of Parliament can never hope to make up for the pain and suffering of the Alder Hey families but we can ensure that their legacy is a sound system that safeguards individuals' rights to give their consent and respects the rights of the family.
  3.45 pm
  Dr. Ian Gibson: The erudition shown by all hon. Members makes it easy not to be repetitive and ask the same questions, which will be tackled in many places.
  I have seen many human tissues from cancer patients and worked with them at all levels. I have especially examined DNA and cancer genes, which have recently been shown to be important in defining whether someone may get cancer and whether it runs in the family. It was important that we did not have to go back for permission once it had been secured. I hope that we will preserve that because this country has been at the forefront of such work and won Nobel prizes for it. It has also been important to share the information internationally.
  During the Alder Hey business, several constituents who had, sadly, lost their children approached me. They were worried about the location of tissues and I took them to various hospitals throughout the country. I especially remember Great Ormond Street hospital because the parents wanted the microscope slides and tissues—not organs but tissues. After negotiations, and because of the furore, they were able to bury the microscope slides. Whatever our personal feelings, we must understand how those parents felt. For them, something had been taken away and they wanted it restored.
  We need to restore public confidence in science and medicine. The march of knowledge depends on that; we cannot move forward without the public behind us. The Bill recognises that—it is one of its major features. I believe that the measure will be a landmark Bill, of which we shall all be proud.
  Any regulations that we make require the serious thought and involvement of many different parties. We get it wrong at our peril. If we do not get it right, there will be media controversy, communication breakdown and a lingering cynicism about organisations whose intent is honourable. We must get the conditions right. Public trust is hard to win but exceptionally easy to lose. We all have experience of that. Trust is often the key to the political success or failure of regulation.
  Scientific and medical authority will no longer legitimise new regulation. I said "authority" but some people would use the word "arrogance" for the assumption that one can act without asking permission. When we took tissues, we had long discussions with people about the purposes for which they might be used. After a while, they would come back and ask, "What did you find out?" It is in the nature of things that one does not always have much to say, but such questions emphasise that people have given tissues and expect something to happen.

  1013
  Open government requires public engagement, which is difficult to achieve. Attempts to get the public to come forward and get involved are plagued with many difficulties. We are finding that with genetically modified crops and measles, mumps and rubella. We must take on the problem and try to ensure that the process is inclusive and that nobody is denied the right to say something. In that context, the fastest growing profession is that of people called ethicists. They are crawling out of the woodwork and making millions. The subject used to be called moral philosophy. Is there a difference? I can never understand it, but people will go on for hours about the difference between an ethicist and a moral philosopher.
  Earlier, it was said that one can never tell what one will find from tissues that are kept and maintained. One never knows what will be found as knowledge moves forward. Let me give two examples of that, because it is important to get this message across to the public during the debate on these issues. The causal agent of peptic ulcers was discovered by a pathologist—an histologist, indeed—who looked at tissue and saw some wiggly things that turned out to be bacteria in the ulcer material. He asked permission to examine certain archive material and, blow me, he found the bacterium helicobacter in every piece of ulcer material. That caused a revolution in the way in which we treat peptic ulcers. Instead of using all the treatments that had been available previously, we suddenly had the drug that had been developed against that bacterium. That discovery revolutionised the treatment.
  The other example involves rectal tumours. People suddenly discovered, by examining tissue, that they had to cut out more than just the rectal cancer. They discovered that they had to extend the surgery a little further because the cancer returned in those patients who did not receive such treatment. When examining the cases of patients who had survived for long periods of time, it was found that extra tissue had been taken from around the rectal cancer. That discovery was made while examining archive material. There are many similar examples, and I am sure that the professional organisations could get involved in telling us all about those developments.
  The examples of those two practices could be used to build public confidence as the Bill proceeds. We shall all be very proud that, following the tragedies that have occurred, we have found a way of restoring public confidence, not only in the practice of taking tissues but in science and medicine generally. That confidence is badly in need of repair, and we are now part of a huge process of revolutionising medicine and science in this country.
  3.51 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I welcome the Bill, so far as it goes, and I certainly agree that this area of the law is in need of modernisation and clarification. The law as it will be after the Bill has been enacted will be a considerable improvement on what we have now. I hope that we get it right, and that the Government continue to pay attention to the concerns of those in the medical research and other establishments, and to ensure that we do not over-react to the understandable public horror at the excesses that were revealed a few years ago in such a way as to damage worthwhile
  1014
  medical research. I share the views of those who are not sure that the wording of the Bill is quite right, and who think that there is a need to consult, particularly as it was not possible to produce a draft Bill. We shall not have an opportunity to return to this issue often.
  I hesitate to upstage the Father of the House, but I recall that, when I was a student, I went into the Strangers Gallery after a dinner in the House and found myself listening to the Second Reading of the Human Tissue Bill. At the time, I did not think that I had picked the best possible evening to witness the heights of political rhetoric, but subsequent experience in the Department of Health and of the reactions to recent events has shown what a sensitive subject this is. I think that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) was a little harsh to criticise the authors of the 1961 Act; it has lasted for more than 40 years. We do, however, need to re-establish such principles as informed consent and to re-establish the reputation of those who need human tissue if they are to make valuable progress in medical research.
  The subject on which I propose to concentrate today is the impact of the Bill on the problem of the shortage of donor organs for transplant in the national health service. I have always believed that that is a serious clinical problem, and it is getting steadily worse, year on year. In 2001, when I drew a place in the ballot for private Members' Bills, I produced a Bill called the Transplant of Human Organs Bill to enable us to have a debate on the problem of that shortage and to seek to tackle some of the essentially legal problems that are causing the difficulties involved. I was drawn seventh in the ballot, so the contents of my Bill were extremely modest—it had to be non-controversial in order to get through. It did, however, give us the opportunity to canvass opinion on other things.
  My Bill did not receive the support of the Government or the then Minister, whose response was that the Government were waiting for the comprehensive survey of all the legislation on which they would then embark. I was somewhat irked by that response, but I congratulate the Government and the present Minister on having addressed at least one of the fears that I expressed at that time. I feared that it would take years to get parliamentary time for a comprehensive Bill on the subject, so I congratulate her on having got a measure into this year's programme and giving us a chance to address the problem.
  Whatever the Bill's impact in the other important and sensitive areas involving human tissue, including its retention, control and use, I fear that it may be regarded as a missed opportunity to do something positive about the continuing shortage of donor organs. I understand why the Government are cautious in this area—the issue is terribly sensitive, so they are right to be cautious—but opportunities rarely arise to rectify the legal problems that give rise to the needless death of many patients awaiting donor organs.
  In 2001, there was a fear that the strong and understandable public reaction to the tragedies and scandals that had been unveiled at Alder Hey and at Bristol would damage the organ donor programme.

  1015
  Fortunately, that did not happen directly because everybody struggled to ensure that it did not happen, but the Government's approach to the Bill has been coloured by the recollections of the ferocious public reaction to the subject as a whole. That has made them more cautious than they need otherwise have been on organ transplantation and the availability of donor organs.
  The bulk of the public recognise the value of having donor organs for those who suffer failure of one kind or another, of their kidneys or hearts in particular, and there are different public attitudes on that subject, which are easier to address than some problems that arise in the examples of anatomy, training, research and so on.
  The organ donor problem is important. Although successive Governments, for as long as I can remember, have tried to tackle it, we ought to face up to the fact that our efforts have not been very effective. It is one of the biggest problems in the NHS that large numbers of people are dying needlessly because of the shortage of organs for transplant. It has already been stated that several hundred die each year who are on the waiting list, waiting for an organ to become available.
  The problem goes beyond that in my opinion, because, quite apart from the death of those who are still waiting, the difficulties in the lives of people who spend some years waiting for an organ transplant while contending with dialysis or with exhaustion, which can affect a patient who needs a heart transplant, are considerable and do enormous damage to the quality of life of many of our constituents.
  The difficulty is that the problem is increasing. The situation is getting slightly worse year by year, not getting better. I am obliged to the Library for enabling me to tell the House that the lengthening waiting lists had reached 5,793 at the end of November 2003. Those are all people who could benefit if more donor organs became available.
  In practice, although the number of patients who are getting on to waiting lists because medical science will enable them to benefit is increasing, the number of donors—in particular, cadaver donors—is slightly decreasing each year. The problem is therefore getting worse. I believe, and I think we all accept in principle, that that situation could be improved by changes in procedures, but also by changes in the law. Legislation would not in itself solve the problem, but where it could contribute we must ensure that we take this opportunity to get it right.
  I welcome some changes that are being made to the procedures designed to speed up the process of identifying available donor organs and making them available to those who are going to treat patients, as well as the Government's attempts to streamline the functions of UK Transplant. The Bill also tidies up some important details of the law, which I addressed in my private Member's Bill, but it does not go to the heart of the matter. The biggest and most important question about the availability of donor organs from people who are deceased is that of consent. I am afraid that the Government have taken too cautious a view.
  Let me make it clear: I realise that assent is at the core of every aspect of this Bill. The principle of
  1016
  informed consent is absolutely essential, and I trust that no civilised person would seek to deny that as long as we do not take it too far in the case of blood samples and minor slide samples, as others have mentioned. Of course, it is essential that no organ is used for donation to a sick patient if we have any reason to believe that the deceased person would have objected to that, or, if the deceased person had expressed no view, if some close family member would be deeply distressed if it took place or believed that the deceased person would have objected. All that must be coped with. The present position, however, puts many obstacles in the way of making use of available cadaver organs, which goes far beyond that.
  The biggest single issue that troubles me, however, is not presumed consent, about which I will speak briefly in a moment. The first issue that I hope we can address is the present confused situation in which people carry donor cards or have their names on the NHS organ donor register. We all accept that not enough people carry cards, and not enough people put their names on the register. We should ask ourselves, however, what assumption are people making if, as I hope everybody in the Chamber does, they carry a card or their name is on the register? I think that we all assume that if that desperate misfortune happens, and we are run over crossing the street and die, when someone finds the card in our wallet, or looks up our name on the register, the whole process will instantly move into gear, with the transplant co-ordinator trying to find out whether anyone can make use of such organs that remain in a usable condition. As I understand it, however, that is not what occurs.
  In many cases, the card that we carry is used by the staff of the hospital to assist them in getting the consent of the relatives for the use of the organs. It is used as a basis to try to persuade no doubt desperately bereaved relatives that the person who has just died would have wished that to happen. That is no doubt helpful, but it does not cut out the process of deciding which relatives to consult, getting hold of them and handling people at a time when they are most vulnerable, and sometimes least rational, and trying to get them, in the middle of their grief, to address the problem of whether the kidneys or heart can be removed for the benefit of another patient.
  It is astonishing that the Minister—in no way am I criticising her—was not able to answer when the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) asked her what I think is the most important question: what is the effect of the Bill on the status of donor cards, and, I would add, on those on the register? I realise the difficulties of holding all the details of such a complex Bill, but if the Minister cannot answer it, what will happen to the practitioners in the field who want to know their legal position? That may require some alteration to the wording of the donor cards, but my belief is that it should normally be assumed that if the deceased person was found to be carrying a donor card, that is the deceased person's consent to going straight into the process of using the organs. My belief about that is even stronger in the case of the NHS register.
  In the course of consideration of the Bill, I hope that that issue can be addressed. The Transplant Partnership and the British Medical Association have long

  1017
  advocated that the law should refer specifically to the NHS register—I would add donor cards to their recommendation—to put the question beyond doubt. When we try to persuade our fellow citizens to indicate a willingness to make their organs available if they should tragically or suddenly die, in conditions in which they have available organs for use, that should be taken as full consent authorising fully what happens.
  Staff will in any case try to contact relatives and discuss the tragedy with them—there will be no question of their not knowing what is going on—but I see no reason why the long list of relatives specified in the Bill should have the final say. It is, after all, conceivable that some half-brother who had had no contact with the deceased person for some time might turn out to hold religious beliefs that the deceased person did not have, and refuse consent; or the divorced parents of a deceased child might have arguments that staff could not resolve. The point of the cards and the register is to avoid such problems.
  It will be suggested that staff find it convenient to have the cards in order to obtain the consent of relatives. I am sure that that is true, as most relatives do consent when they know that the person carried a card. The problem, however, is not that when people get around to it they cannot use the cards to obtain the consent of relatives, but that the process involved puts people off. In a hard-pressed intensive care unit people simply may not bother to work through all the relatives and find a suitable one, while ensuring that no relative in a priority category has been missed out. No bother will be necessary if the discovery of a card means it is possible to proceed, and then inform relatives as quickly and as sensitively as possible.
  The Minister was not able to answer off the cuff when asked this question earlier, but can we be told whether the carrying of a donor card or the registering of a name will in itself constitute sufficient consent for organs to be donated? If the answer is not clear, will the Minister undertake to ensure that it is made clear during the Bill's progress, so that in due course an Act will make it crystal clear that carrying a card gives the go-ahead for the use of organs?
  I shall not say a great deal about presumed consent, because the issues are clear and no doubt the subject will be discussed when an amendment is tabled. Obviously there will be a free vote for all parties, given that the issue is devoid of party politics. I support what the Transplant Partnership and the BMA have called the soft presumed-consent procedure, whereby the seeking of relatives' consent starts from a presumption that if there is no evidence that the deceased person took any steps to object, that constitutes his consent—but if relatives who are found express strong views priority must immediately be given to their feelings.
  That would not constitute a dramatic change in itself. No one is suggesting that relatives should not be consulted or informed of what is going on. I believe, however, that presumed consent would give rise to a more positive view of transplantation generally in the NHS, and indeed would help relatives. If the presumption is that organs will be used unless relatives have strong moral or religious objections, or believe that the deceased person would have objected, relatives will in fact be relieved of some of the burden of having to
  1018
  give positive agreement to the cutting up of a body to remove organs that are not diseased. In their desperate state, they may not feel able to make such a decision.
  That is what the Spanish do. I accept that it is not the only thing that is done right in Spain, and not the only thing that produces a better record than ours throughout western Europe when it comes to the availability of donor organs. I believe, however, that it must contribute to that. As I said earlier, the cadaver donor rate per million of population in Spain is more than double our own rate. I believe that we have the worst record in western Europe. We must do something about that weakness in the law.
  Mr. Dalyell rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, whose ten-minute Bill I hope I voted for in 1971.
  Mr. Dalyell: The right hon. and learned Gentleman did vote for it. When I did a long survey over 42 days, it was almost pathetic to note that many people who had not given permission for some part of their loved ones to be used later regretted it. It was a matter of considerable sadness to them that they had not been able to help other people.
  Mr. Clarke: I quite agree, which is why it is so much better for people to indicate their wishes during their lifetime or to make a presumption that they would have consented unless a relative is quite sure that they would not have. In fact, we waste many available organs: after making inquiries into many deaths, in only a small proportion of cases is it found that people persisted in objecting to the removal of a kidney or heart for a transplantation operation. I hope that the issue will he re-assessed during the Bill's passage through both Houses.
  We all agree that it is not a partisan issue and we have all joined in congratulating the Government on presenting a Bill that provides us with an opportunity to deal with all transplantation and other human tissue issues in one piece of legislation, tidying up and clarifying the law. However, if we make no advance on our present law and practice in respect of the shortage of donor organs, we will regret having missed that opportunity. I hope that the House will encourage the Government to be more ambitious in their intentions and to press more ambitious amendments as the Bill proceeds. Otherwise, we will have a growing scandal of a steadily deteriorating position in which people are dying needlessly or having their lives destroyed by waiting for organs that never become available.
  4.11 pm
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I, too, welcome the Bill, as it signifies the Government's clear intention to clarify the law. I have some reservations about it on the grounds that it does not completely clarify the law and is less comprehensive than I would have liked.
  Practice over the use of a patient's organs has varied from place to place, and the Bill attempts to put into statute what is already best practice. I certainly welcome that. However, because it is not comprehensive enough,

  1019
  it needs to be examined carefully in Committee. I only hope that the Committee has enough time. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) is right that we must have enough time to examine the Bill carefully.
  The Bill has been introduced without following through what the chief medical officer said should happen in January 2001, which relates to my reservations. At the chief medical officer's summit on 11 January 2001, Professor Donaldson said that, after the publication of Royal Liverpool's children inquiry, the move forward on any necessary changes, including legislative changes, should be "all in one go". He also said that the Department had large research programmes and that there was "no way" that it would wish
  "to divert or suppress any research".
  Professor Donaldson was, I believe, looking for a more comprehensive measure than the Bill before us this evening. I hope that we will reflect carefully on what he had to say.
  The chief medical officer's report of January 2001 was entitled, "The Removal, Retention and Use of Human Organs and Tissue from Post-Mortem Examination". What Professor Donaldson recommended was accepted:
  "As soon as possible, there should be a more fundamental and broader revision of the law, encompassing the taking, storage and use of human tissue from the living and the dead and introducing an independent system of regulatory control. To be comprehensive this should encompass aspects of Coroners' practice. It should shift the emphasis from 'retention' to 'donation' to signal a new relationship with the public and bereaved families."
  For me, the issue is why these matters have not been followed through. We need to take a proper look at the question of consent for coroners, which, of course, is automatic at the time of the inquest. Permission is required after the inquest has been conducted; however, many people are misled by the existing legislation.
  I want to express my admiration for the excellent work of the staff of the Royal children's hospital, Liverpool—or Alder Hey, as it is better known—which is just across my constituency border. It has treated patients from all over the United Kingdom, and even from abroad, and its reputation will undoubtedly outlive its recent problems and shortcomings. It has for a long time had a unit devoted to assisting bereaved parents with the utmost compassion. In my view, it remains a world leader in the treatment of children.
  Following inquiries into the events at Alder Hey, however, it became apparent, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said, that the storage of human organs and tissue without consent was widespread. Both the hospital and university authorities—they have not been mentioned specifically in the debate so far—were culpable. There was no criminal sanction, but the existing law proved ambiguous. Parents were told at the time of their bereavement that all the organs had been returned to the bodies. That was untrue. The situation was horrendous, and, as has been said, in some cases the bereaved parents had to endure multiple
  1020
  funerals. Even where consent was given, the parents had no idea that it meant the extraction of all organs, and that what they were burying were the mere shells of their loved ones. I hope that the proposed Human Tissue Authority will address that issue properly when drawing up a code of practice.
  I am a little worried about codes of practice. Will the code, which should certainly be very clear, be enforced in the manner of the highway code, for example? If it is not to be regarded by the health service in the way the highway code is regarded so far as transport matters are concerned, there should be clear legislative enactment of it. People ought to know that a criminal sanction will apply, should the code be offended against.
  Some say that there should be a presumption of consent, but I am a little unhappy about that. In my view, the needs of research and medical training should never take precedence over the rights of bereaved relatives.
  Dr. Evan Harris: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that those Members who support the option of presumed consent—including a "soft" version, whereby relatives are consulted—propose that it apply not to organ use for teaching and research, or to children's organs, but only to life-saving transplantations.
  Mr. Wareing: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments, which are in accord with my views on what should happen.
  The right balance should be struck between the needs of society and the interests of parents. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) was present when we discussed this issue, but he was unable to interject and offer his wise comments. The Human Tissue Act 1961 certainly fails in respect of creating the right balance. Currently, medical education comes first, and the retention of organs is based on lack of objection, rather than on consent. That issue needs to be looked at very carefully when the Bill is gone through in detail in Committee.
  Clause 24 deals with qualifying relationships in respect of who may give or refuse consent—I think the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe wrongly referred to clause 35 in that regard. However, it is unclear what would happen if there was disagreement between two persons of equal ranking under the provisions. There could be religious objections of the type referred to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, or the person might not have seen the deceased for many years, or even decades, and their views might stand in the way of what the deceased person might have wanted. It is possible that a majority of people will continue not to carry donor cards, and although I hope that situation will change it seems unlikely to do so significantly.
  The Bill provides that a living child may give its consent if competent, but what exactly is meant by "competent"? How is one to discover whether a child is competent?
  The Bill does not include provision for a decision to be made on behalf of mentally incapacitated living donors. Will that matter be addressed in Committee, or will the Government's mental health Bill include a suitable clause to cover such contingencies?

  1021
  When news of the retention of organs broke, Alder Hey made an attempt to provide families with counselling, which was a good thing. However, the counsellors either were, or were assumed to be, connected with Alder Hey and thus not independent, so families were sometimes reluctant to take up the service. Should not counselling support be independent of the organisation at fault? Will the Minister consider tabling a new clause on that issue? Many bereaved parents—certainly in the Liverpool area—did not go to the hospital for counselling because they thought that the counsellors were in league with the people at fault over their loved ones.
  We tend to ignore the international dimension of these matters. There are many differences of practice between states. Is not there a need for harmonisation, at least between the countries of the European Union? United Kingdom citizens should be covered when abroad. Spain has been mentioned, but I believe that in Austria all organs are stripped from a dead person. That has happened to British tourists, no doubt against the wishes of their bereaved relatives.
  What is our current policy on the European convention on human rights and biomedicine? About two years ago, in their reply to my question on that subject, the Government seemed to be of the view that they were considering the convention, but I do not think that anything has happened since then. What is the current situation?
  I hope that the Minister can answer my questions. The Bill deserves a Second Reading and I am sure that the whole House will support it, but it needs detailed consideration, and although I shall support the programme motion it is very restrictive.
  4.24 pm
  Mr. David Wilshire: Although the Bill is about more than organ donation, it is on that subject that I rise to speak. I do not speak as a party politician; this has to be free-vote territory. I speak simply as an individual whose awful experience may help others to clarify their approach to at least one of the difficult issues raised by the Bill.
  At the outset, I want to make it clear that I have no objections at all, in principle, to the removal of parts of a dead body. In fact, I have carried a donor card for many years. However, I do have some concerns about consent, and they arise from the death of my daughter.
  Twenty-two years ago, my 12-year-old daughter choked to death at school. Very shortly after that catastrophic event, I met some of her teachers and some of the staff at the hospital to which she had been taken. I was too distraught to turn my mind to organ donation, and I suspect that they were too kind to risk causing me further distress by raising the subject. As a result, no part of the body that was no longer of any use to Sarah could be used to help others. As the Father of the House predicted a few minutes ago, that is something that I deeply regret to this day.
  When they hear me recount that story, people might believe that it is an argument in favour of presumed consent. However—and perhaps curiously to some people's minds—that experience has led me to become an opponent of presumed consent, and I want to try to explain to the House why that is so.
  1022
  All hon. Members have probably received representations recently urging us to use the Bill to introduce some form of presumed consent for the removal of organs from a dead body unless someone has registered opposition to that course of action. I readily accept that there are powerful arguments in favour of that approach. Principal among them are the shortage of donor organs noted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), and the many and growing opportunities to help people in need of organ transplants.
  I accept that helping those people is an entirely worthy objective, and I hope that the entire House supports it. I certainly do, but I believe that we can achieve that objective by means other than through presumed consent. There are serious anxieties about presumed consent, and I have my doubts about whether it would solve all the problems that its supporters claim that it would solve. The potential abuse of presumed consent is a very real fear. Appropriate amendments to the Bill might resolve that problem, but we must also consider the impact of presumed consent on bereaved relatives.
  If presumed consent had been in operation on that June evening so many years ago—and I take the point about its not applying to children made by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris)—a doctor would have got on with what he judged needed to be done, or he would have had to check that I had no objections. If I had discovered later that, although I was in the hospital, no one had taken the trouble to consult me, I would have been outraged. Had I been invited to object rather than to agree, it is probable that I would have been made to feel guilty for the rest of my life if I had found the need to refuse.
  Please believe me: the last thing that a person who is struggling to cope with the death of a daughter wants is additional and avoidable grief. That is why I oppose presumed consent. To my mind, something that has the capacity to add outrage and guilt to the hell that one goes through in those circumstances simply has to be wrong.
  That said, I can readily understand why I might sound selfish to other people. I know that doctors are busy people, so why put obstacles in their way? It is not easy to ask permission from a bereaved family, so why make clinicians do something difficult and unpleasant?
  Let me give my answers to those two questions. If there were ever a situation where the needs and wishes of patients and their families must come first, this is it. On such occasions, clinical convenience must always be a secondary issue. Presumed consent would not spare doctors the difficult task of raising the subject of organ donation with bereaved families—all it would do, as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) said, is alter the nature of that discussion. In my opinion, asking, "Do you wish to object?" is no easier than asking, "Please may we?", but to my mind, "Please may we?" is much kinder and much gentler.
  Those who speak on any subject have a duty, if they oppose a certain way of achieving something desirable, to say what the alternative ways of achieving it are. In this case, I suggest "required request". Let me give the House a few examples of what I have in mind. We could

  1023
  train, then require, GPs to raise the issue with their patients, especially when registering new patients, and they could record all those agreements on a central database. We could help, then require, hospital managers to add a question to their admission forms: I am sure that that would help. We could train, then require, hospital doctors, especially those who specialise in accident and emergency, to raise the subject gently with the bereaved. I would have been eternally grateful had they done that with me those 22 years ago.
  Before I conclude, I add a footnote about the events at Alder Hey hospital that triggered the drafting of the Bill. I, too, had constituents who were affected and a local hospital that was involved, and I therefore witnessed for myself the distress, grief and anger to which the Minister referred. Because of the death of my daughter and the post-mortem that followed, I, too, could have been personally involved. Had I been, the last thing I would have wanted—whatever the facts that may have been discovered—would be someone knocking on my door 20 years later and reopening a still very sore wound. I may sound like a coward, but some things that people demand that they know, I would rather not know. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) put it well when he said that there is a right not to know, as well as a right to know.
  The Bill raises many more issues than those that I have mentioned. I readily accept that they are all important, that they are all difficult, and that none of them is party political. Using human tissue and organs can save the lives of others and is essential for medical research—that is why I support it—but we must not allow our enthusiasm to help others run away with us in the decisions that we take. Potential donors and their families must have equal consideration.
  I realise that it is probably inevitable that I am on the side of the bereaved, and I feel no need to apologise for that. Even if others disagree with me, I hope that sharing Sarah's experience and my conclusions with the House may, in some small way, help this House to reach compassionate conclusions on all the intensely personal issues that are raised by the Bill.
  4.35 pm
  Mr. Tom Watson: This is a good Bill. As many hon. Members said, it is the result of a desire on both sides of the House to provide justice for the families of Alder Hey and Bristol. What better tribute could there be to the daughter of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) than that we can have an open debate about how we can advance compassion in medical science?
  The hon. Member for Spelthorne made a powerful case for an opt-in system and advanced some creative ideas as to how we can improve the organ donor register. I should like to put it on record that I believe that the initiatives that the Government have taken in the past two years are excellent—not least, sending out licence reminders to 6 million people and encouraging electoral returning officers to add an opt-in system to people's voter registration forms. That obviously means that we can advance towards the target that the Minister discussed earlier, and 11 million people on the organ donor register must be welcome.
  1024
  I would like to take this opportunity to advance the cause of presumed consent. Many Members have said that they believe in a system of weak consent. When I first approached the matter, I believed that if a deceased person's body could be used to save a life, then a hard form of presumed consent should be included in legislation. I must say that I have changed my view because of conversations with my constituents, which is true of my approach to many debates in the House.
  One such constituent is David Nix, who is a great man. He runs the organ Donor Family Network and, having received a small grant from the Department of Health, he operates the organ donor bus. Week in, week out, he tours the country and has signed up tens of thousands of people to the organ donor register. David convinced me that families must be involved in the decision to donate organs. When I attended a ceremony in my constituency to honour the memory of Sarah Lewis, I met Sarah's parents, David and Katherine. At the time of their maximum grief, only a few months after her death, they took solace from knowing that Sarah's organs had saved many lives. That helped them in their grief and convinced me that, if we are to introduce a form of presumed consent, parents must be consulted and have the right to veto, and that all the issues must be dealt with sensitively.
  Transplants are the wonder of modern medicine. I hope that the Bill results in robust legislation that stands the test of time like the Human Tissue Act 1961—I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) that that was a good Act. When the legislation was debated in 1961, medical science had not developed ways to transplant spleens, kidneys, hearts and lungs and to conduct multiple transplant operations. The 1961 Act has stood the test of time, but it is right for us to take the time to consider the advances of the next 40 years. I hope that the Bill will allow for future advances such as xenotransplantation and stem cell research, and that will be an issue in Committee.
  As the Minister in the debate in 1961 said, the test of the Bill will be whether we can build public confidence and convince people that organ donation is morally right. The 1961 Act succeeded. As has been said, most market research shows that at least three quarters of the British public believe in organ donation, and some surveys show that 90 per cent. of the population believe in organ donation. If nine out of 10 people in Britain support organ donation, it is obviously a problem that only 15 per cent. of people are on the organ donor register. As the Father of the House said, one way of addressing that gap is presumed consent.
  I have read the Father of the House's contribution to the 1971 debate, and I have read the five further contributions that he made throughout the 1970s. Although it was not unexpected, I was sad to hear the announcement of his retirement at the end of this Parliament. As a new entrant in 2001, I had the benefit of his support and advice when I moved a ten-minute Bill on organ donation last year. He is renowned for yielding to no one in pursuing what he thinks is right, be it organ donation, the sinking of the General Belgrano

  1025
  or, dare I say it, the decision of this House to enter Iraq. He will be sadly missed and I hope that he can still make a contribution after he leaves the House.
  The House does not have a great reputation for introducing legislation that meets the advances of medical science. The Corneal Grafting Bill was introduced by the then hon. Member for Tonbridge in 1952, but we had the technology to do corneal grafts in 1900. It took the House 52 years to pass an Act with a framework with which clinicians could engage. I would like to think that we will ensure that we do not make that mistake again.
  During the course of my research for the debate, I came across a Select Committee report from 1828 and a debate on the Bill that became the Anatomy Act 1832, which dealt with body snatchers. The debates arose because colleges could not teach medicine without cadavers, so a black market for them existed. If the Government do not reduce the gap between the number of people who require organs and the number of organs available for transplant, we will create a black market again. I do not want us to lack the courage to act today and thus create an eBay body-snatcher culture of the kind that we have read about in the press in the past two weeks. I hope that we can be bold, and that those on both Front Benches may be convinced not to close the door entirely on presumed consent, while trying to be as sensitive as possible to the views of parents and loved ones.
  4.41 pm
  Dr. Richard Taylor: It is with some diffidence that I start by declaring an interest, because it is relatively unimportant compared with the major aspects of the Bill: I must own up to still possessing the skeleton that I bought as a student along with Gray's "Anatomy" and dissecting instruments—it cost the princely sum of £16. The language of the Bill is fairly incomprehensible, as I shall go on to illustrate in relation to more important matters, so I am not sure whether I have possession of the specimen only for the purpose for which I was so authorised to have possession of it. I am not sure whether I am legally allowed to lend it to my children for display in their schools during lessons in human biology. I am not sure whether I am allowed to sell it at what would be its value today of something like 240 quid. That is just one example of how difficult it is to understand provisions in the Bill.
  At yesterday's briefing by Cancer Research UK, we heard that it thinks that the Bill's drafting is incomprehensible. It said:
  "Complexity is not an excuse for opacity."
  I cannot resist reading to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a sentence from the Bill that Stephen McGinness of the Library staff drew to my attention. Clause 30(4) is a classic of incomprehensibility that says:
  "Regulations under subsection (3) shall include provision for decisions of the Authority in relation to matters which fall to be decided by it under the regulations to be subject, in such circumstances as the regulations may provide, to reconsideration in accordance with such procedure as the regulations may provide".
  That is rather abstruse. I do not share the Minister's belief that schedule 1 is clear because several items in part 2 of the schedule—purposes not normally requiring consent—require the use of human tissue, so the situation needs clarifying.
  1026
  As many hon. Members have said, by far the most important aspect of the Bill is consent. Consent is crucial to patients, families, clinicians and, especially, pathologists. The word "appropriate" has already been discussed. Why are we in a position in which we require legislation on the use of human tissue, which is a basic necessity? It is because requests for operations and post-mortems in many hospitals have been delegated to the most junior member of the team for generations. The houseman who has only just arrived on the scene has no knowledge of what the pathologist is going to do. I myself have been guilty of obscuring the difference between the removal of tissue and the removal of a whole organ. I am probably one of the few hon. Members with experience of asking for post-mortems and transplantation. A basic and practical point is when is the best time to make such a request? Should doctors do it at the same time that they tell the family about the death, or should they bring them back the next day, ostensibly to collect their relative's belongings, so that they can ask them at an easier time? Is it an easier time for the doctors, or is it easier for the family? There are therefore practical issues that need to be addressed.
  From the doctor's point of view, a post-mortem to confirm diagnosis and the effects of treatment is vital. Attendance at the post-mortem provides an educational opportunity for the clinical team, which is often split by shift working, to come together. An article in the British Medical Journal in October by the vice-president of the New Zealand Medical Association examined the effect of the declining number of autopsies on medical student training. It said of post-mortems:
  "Attendance also heightens awareness of the large number of patients with multiple conditions and the level of uncertainty in medicine."
  That experience is not easily gained elsewhere, so post-mortems are still of great importance. Consent is crucial, and equally crucial is the method of obtaining it. I have a copy of the agreement form for post-mortems that is used in my own trust and which, I am sure, is representative of forms used throughout the country. It is daunting for a hard pressed doctor to find the time to supervise the answering of 14 questions with ticks and filling in two boxes. The Minister of State kindly said that she was determined that it would not be onerous to request consent. However, it will be onerous if we do not get it right, and I hope that the Standing Committee will address that in detail. My trust's consent form ends with a killer request:
  "Please read the booklet 'Information for Relatives' before you sign this form."
  Much work therefore needs to be done on the way in which consent is requested. For example, should the pathologist be involved in obtaining consent?
  I shall deal briefly with the Human Tissue Authority, because I am sure that it will be addressed at greater length in Committee. Codes of practice and licensing requirements are an essential part of its role. Provisions on its membership are loose in the Bill, but the Royal College of Pathologists would like representation, as

  1027
  would the General Medical Council. I shall not spend more than a moment talking about consent for the transplantation of organs, because it has been fully covered by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who spoke from very personal experience. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) mentioned a serious drawback for practising clinicians. In the intensive care unit of the hospital where I used to work, we almost groaned when someone was able to donate organs for transplantation because of the time that that took to organise. People do not realise that not only kidneys, hearts and livers, but skin may be used, which is incredibly disfiguring and one of the things to which relatives can really object.
  Research has been fully covered by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson). The crucial importance of human tissue to research has already been mentioned.
  I will conclude with some warnings from practical pathologists that illustrate some of the points made by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). First, a practising pathologist in Manchester said:
  "While the intention of the bill regarding tissues from the deceased is entirely laudable, it also legislates for tissues from the living. As a consequence, any use of human tissues for teaching not 'incidental to medical diagnosis or treatment' and all use for research will require explicit consent from the patient"
  or the relatives. That is a huge burden. Another pathologist also emphasises the tortuousness, the lack of clarity and how hard the language is to follow. He even goes to say that he believes that there is a risk of defensive practices by pathologists, who may withdraw from activities that might put them at risk of criminal prosecution.
  It is crucial to separate the retention and use of tissues from the deceased, which is emotive, from the use of surplus tissue excised for the good of the patients, which is obviously far easier to understand. So I welcome the intentions of the Bill, but I feel that there is a tremendous lot of work to do in Committee, and I am rather doubtful whether enough time will be allowed for that.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I try to help the House? Four hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. We must wind up the debate at 5.30 pm, or thereabouts. If the time can be shared, everyone should be satisfied, I hope.
  4.51 pm
  Harry Cohen: The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) made a valid point about improving the clarity of the language used in the Bill, and I hope that the Government will take that on board and that that will come about in the later stages, as the Bill passes through Parliament. However, I welcome the Bill as a whole.
  The Bristol royal infirmary and the Royal Liverpool Children's NHS trust, Alder Hey, cases were scandals, and it is right that the Government have come up with
  1028
  the Bill to address such issues. Body parts were kept without the consent or knowledge of parents and relatives, and the doctors failed to communicate with the families. Those families were denied their right to bury their loved ones wholly, and suffered subsequent anxieties. We have heard about some of those anxieties today, such as having to carry out multiple burials and dealing with the fact that some of the parts could have been experimented on without the family's consent.
  The Bill rightly makes consent the principle for the retention and use of human tissues and organs. The post-mortem laws will remain unchanged. The removal and storage of human material at the direction of the coroner to determine the cause of death remains. Also, the police can still use human tissue for DNA testing to investigate suspected crimes—again, without consent. I want to return to those issues a little later in my remarks.
  I welcome the principle of consent and the setting up of the Human Tissue Authority. It will have regulatory powers and responsibilities, including licensing for the specific purposes where it will be legitimate to store and use body parts. It will also have a general role in informing the public about the issues involved. When considering the creation of such quangos, what went through my mind was the Food Standards Agency, which is a good organisation—I am not critical of it—but it has a bit of a balance to address, and I sometimes think that it leans more towards the industry than consumers. I would not want that to be the case with the Human Tissue Authority. It is important that it recognises the public interest as opposed to those of the industry or, in this case, the pressure groups concerned with anatomy issues.
  The authority will have the power to determine legally binding standards without oversight from Parliament. Again, I am not very happy about that. That means that the authority will not be as properly accountable as I would like it to be. The authority should report to Parliament annually to make it more accountable. Overall, however, I welcome the fact that it is to be set up.
  The Bill rightly creates a new offence of trafficking in human bodies or body parts. That problem is very much linked to poverty and desperation, so it is absolutely right that such trafficking should be made illegal and subject to penalties. Harsher penalties should be imposed on those trading in organs than on the desperate people who sell them. However, the provisions on that should not stop proper organ transplants that would save lives.
  We shall have to consider the modern ethical issues relating to reproductive and genetic tissue. Cell lines from stem cells can be used in the production of commercial products. There can be variations in the way in which the human material is used irrespective of how the original consent was obtained. That and the issues of whether the body part can be tracked back to the donor or whether the donor's or his family's privacy has been affected also create ethical questions.
  Perhaps banks of tissues could be set up in the private sector—it is likely that they would be in the private sector—for subsequent profitable production. Therefore, the Human Tissue Authority should have the power to intervene if the use and storage of parts and

  1029
  tissues is deemed to be contrary to the public interest. The profits of a corporation do not provide sufficient reason for there to be a loophole that could lead to the retention and use of many body parts. I re-emphasise my point that the authority should not be in the pocket of industry when it considers such important ethical issues.
  The Minister referred to the "Bodyworlds" exhibition. I think that it was an excellent exhibition. It was extremely educative. It had an art element as well as changing and informing perspectives on the human body and how it works, and on death itself. It would have been wrong to ban the exhibition, although it was banned in Germany, for example. It was seen by more than 100,000 people and they probably learned a lot. The Human Tissue Authority should have to consider all the issues involved with such an event and it should do so openly.
  My main reason for wanting to take part in the debate is that I asked a parliamentary question about the rules for the removals of brains, and was told in reply that organs and tissues may be removed if a person
  "who has died has authorised that prior to their death".
  The removal can also be authorised by their relatives or by a coroner who can remove or retain organs on his own authority. However, if they are used for a subsequent purpose, he must obtain a separate authorisation. The organs may also be removed
  "for anatomical examination when a person has bequeathed his or her body for this purpose."—[Official Report, 4 June 2003; Vol. 406, c. 485W.]
  That was updated by the 1984 coroners rules, which state that the brain can be removed if that material, in the coroner's opinion, bears upon the cause of death and that it can be kept for such period as the coroner thinks fit. The coroner's opinion may not be openly stated and be in the public domain and the period might not be specified, so the organ could be kept for much longer—and those are only coroners rules, not reality.
  I suspect that there may be loopholes, particularly in respect of major criminals—who sometimes hold a fascination that is out of proportion. I was amazed to read a report that Ronnie Kray was buried without his brain. Clearly, prior consent from Ronnie Kray or his relatives was neither sought nor obtained—which I found offensive. Although I asked a number of parliamentary questions, I could not get to the bottom of how that procedure was allowed and how widespread it is in relation to criminals. I have tabled another question asking whether Harold Shipman's body will be disposed of intact, and look forward to receiving the answer. Treating criminals in that way is a form of mediaeval punishment, showing contempt and disrespect post-death. It seems uncalled for and verges on barbarity.
  Such practices also give rise to the possibility of Frankenstein-type experimentation. Together with the possible future reproduction of stem cells, the retention of the brains of criminals such as Ronnie Kray could make possible the recreation of criminals by a mad Dr. Frankenstein-type scientist or even by an officer of a state institution, perhaps accidentally. I am still not confident that such risks are ruled out by the Bill. There could be a loophole via the police, a coroner or the Human Tissue Authority that allowed such procedures, even if they were not explicitly or directly authorised.
  1030
  Such a loophole would be an abuse of the role of the state. Are criminals treated differently from other members of society? They are not mentioned specifically in the Bill, yet in the past they have been treated differently. Does Crown immunity come into this? I do not think that it should apply.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) made the point that mentally ill persons may be alone and unable to make reasoned, proper judgments. The Bill should be reviewed in Committee to give such persons greater protection and to clarify their position.
  I very much welcome the Bill. The Government have been brave to tackle this issue and have done a good job in bringing the measure before us—but I hope that the aspects that I have mentioned will be reviewed before the Bill completes its passage through the House.
  5.4 pm
  Dr. Evan Harris: I congratulate the Government on introducing the Bill, which has many good aspects. I also congratulate the Minister on her stamina in sitting in the Chamber throughout our debate. That is most welcome.
  I declare a personal interest in the organ retention aspects of the measure because my father was professor of child health at Alder Hey hospital before Professor van Velzen carried out his unacceptable practices. My father was mentioned in the Redfern report—because he was involved in van Velzen's appointment—but he was completely exonerated by the General Medical Council.
  Mr. Dobson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for correcting me. I said the wrong name in my speech. Van Velzen was indeed the villain of the piece.
  Dr. Harris: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman could make that point.
  Events at Alder Hey are an example of what happened throughout the country, and of an old-fashioned paternalistic attitude. Something that was unacceptable on deeper reflection became routine practice. There is no doubt that, at Alder Hey and perhaps elsewhere, there was deviousness if not malice in the continuation of such practices, not simply with thoughtlessness or recklessness about consent, but with disregard to whether consent had been given.
  As far as the Bill's provisions on retaining organs for research go, they are an appropriate response, as was the Government's action when the Alder Hey affair came to light. However, it should be stressed that pathology is an honourable profession. Pathologists are an essential part of a modern and effective health service. It can only be regretted that some of the side effects of the controversy mean that they have felt personally oppressed by some press coverage. That also applies to some extent to paediatricians. We can only be pleased that the reputation of Alder Hey hospital's clinical work, which, as others have said, is second to none, has been maintained after the controversy.
  I want to consider presumed consent. I acknowledge with due humility the long-standing contributions of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke).

  1031
  The hon. Members for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) and for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) introduced ten-minute Bills on the subject, and I understand that the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) intends to introduce one. A broad cross-section of hon. Members have therefore made contributions on the issue. In 1998, I introduced a ten-minute Bill on it.
  My interest arose from the time that I spent working on a renal ward as a senior house officer. I saw the other side of the equation—the people who were literally dying while waiting for transplants. However, in my three years in acute hospital practice, I also saw the donor side and how often that was handled badly, if at all. I am a member of the British Medical Association medical ethics committee and of the Transplant Partnership. I spent four years on a research ethics committee that considered research protocols, some of which used tissues. I currently chair the all-party kidney group.
  Opinion is clearly split and we must acknowledge that both sides have strongly held views that have been powerfully expressed. However, the issue is so important that it places an extra onus on us beyond the usual practice of the House, which sometimes does not extend further than party political point scoring—I am as guilty as anyone else of that. There is an onus on the Government to allow a proper debate in the House and a public debate. As far as it is within their power, they should provide for a free vote, which should also apply to the payroll vote, given that the matter is an issue of conscience. Those of us who support presumed consent have a duty to try to deal with the concerns of the other side.
  Those on each side of the debate have a duty not to fiddle the figures and to ensure that, when statements are verifiable and quantifiable, the evidence is presented at the same time. Simply making assertions and claiming that they are facts does not do justice to the issue.
  We on our side of the argument must recognise the opposition of conscience of people who feel strongly about bereaved relatives' rights to consultation and veto. They may feel that those rights should be above the presumed wishes of the patients, above the interests of those dying while waiting and above the interests of the other set of relatives, who will soon be bereaved unless something is done. I hope that we make that recognition clear in our debates. However, we must start by recognising, as many have done, the need to increase the number of organs for donation, although I shall not repeat the figures that have been given. That is why we have a duty to be careful. I, for one, would drop my support for presumed consent if any of the following three things were demonstrated: that it was not effective; that there was public opposition; or that there was an ethical consensus against it. I hope, by the same token, that the Government and others, apart from those who have a fundamental objection of conscience, would drop their opposition to my proposal if they were shown evidence that it was effective, that there was public support and that there was not an ethical consensus against it. I hope that we will see that development in the coming debates.
  1032
  It is important to deal with some of the arguments against presumed consent. First, we should say what presumed consent is. It would give adults—it is important to note that it would not apply to children—the right and opportunity to opt out in multiple ways, such as using post offices, driver's licences or electoral registration forms. Such a scheme would promote discussion among relatives who would be asked at the appropriate time, the opt-out register having been checked, whether they knew of any objection that had not been registered. Of course, relatives would also be asked the usual questions about social history required for screening purposes. There is no difference between the two schemes in that regard, so it is not appropriate for the Government to argue that that need means that presumed consent could not work.
  The difference between the two schemes is that under presumed consent, relatives would have to volunteer their opposition. Organs would not be taken despite there being no opt-out or evidence of one if that opposition were significant and taking organs would cause the relatives major distress. But the presumption would be that donation would take place. That has been shown to reduce the stress on relatives who would otherwise have to second-guess, and to increase the number of organs made available.
  Presumed consent is also more likely to give autonomy to the person whose organs are involved. We know that between 70 and 85 per cent. of people want their organs to be used, but that when relatives are asked, 50 per cent. say no. That cannot be right. We are talking not about going against a person's wishes, but ensuring that we are more likely to satisfy those wishes.
  The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), in his moving and eloquent contribution, was very helpful in pointing out the stresses on relatives during the current process, even if that process is not practised, as in his tragic case, when he was not approached. I have to say, however, that the point of presumed consent is that patients would come first because their wishes would not be vetoed by the family. The interests of the relatives would also be taken into account because they would be less likely to be feeling guilty for saying no at the height of their grief, despite the patient having had no known opposition, and some good would then have come from the death of their loved one. Relatives would not be asked, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, "Do you wish to object?" They would be asked, "Do you know whether your loved one had an opposition to organ donation that we have not found on the register?" If the relatives answered no to that, they would then be given an opportunity to volunteer their own fundamental objections, but that would not be fished for as at present. That system has been acceptable to the public and to relatives where it has been used.
  That is the soft system of presumed consent. No one is suggesting that organs would be taken against the fiercely held views of relatives. Indeed, the Government recognise in the Bill that there is a clash. From my reading of clause 4, it suggests that if there is a donor card that satisfactorily fulfils the requirements for appropriate consent—as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe said—relatives will not be able to veto that consent, in that opt-in approach. The question

  1033
  of relatives' views being against the presumed or actual views of the patient is not new in respect of presumed consent.
  I want to deal with the question of evidence. In a press release yesterday, the Government said:
  "There is no evidence that a policy of presumed consent increases the number of organs for transplantation."
  I find that surprising, especially when that statement is not accompanied by any dossier that I can find in the Library to verify it. In fact, the published evidence is that that policy has a positive effect. A review was published that stated:
  "In three western countries there is evidence that changing to a contracting out system resulted in an increase in organs".
  That review is very clear, and first among its authors is Professor Sir Ian Kennedy, who is also the author of the Bristol review. The source for that information is The Lancet of 30 May 1998, volume 351, so there is some evidence there.
  In October 1999, Transplant Newsletter reported the findings of an expert committee of the Council of Europe. At section 4.6.1, that report said:
  "Presumed consent laws, when fully accepted, seem to benefit donation".
  That is another clear example of evidence from a review group. I can also cite, although I will not go into it, the paper by Paul Michielsen entitled "Presumed Consent to Organ Donation: 10 Years' Experience in Belgium", which appeared in the December 1996 edition of the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, volume 89, and a paper by Roels and Vanrenterghem in Annals of Transplantation, volume 1, No. 4, entitled "Legislative Aspects of Organ and Tissue Donation in Belgium".
  If the Government are going to keep saying that there is no evidence that such a policy would be effective, they have to provide the data to hon. Members, because the data that I can find suggest that the expert view is that it does produce an effect.
  Presumed consent is not the only game in town and those of us who support it are not of the view that introducing it is the only thing that needs to be done. We recognise the other steps that the Government are taking.
  In respect of public support, according to this morning's edition of The Guardian, the Government have claimed that doctors do not support presumed consent, but the British Medical Association overwhelmingly supported a move to presumed consent. At the moment, there is not sufficient opinion poll evidence to tell either way what the situation is. I certainly would not back as good opinion poll evidence a listeners' poll on the "Today" programme, but it was interesting and I pay respect to the powerful advocacy of Richard Spurgin, who made a case for a change in the law.
  Although I acknowledge the Government's attempts to increase the supply of organs, the paper recently produced by UK Transplant shows that there is a significant problem: when relatives are asked about transplantation, 50 per cent. say no. Only a small number are never asked and there is only a small number of cases in which organ donation is not considered. That deals with the question of the "required request" that was raised by the hon. Member for Spelthorne. My proposal could have a powerful effect and I ask the Government to give it a fair wind. They should allow and join in a public debate on this important issue.
  5.18 pm
  Dr. Doug Naysmith: Although time is precious, I must refer to the very personal speech made by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). At one stage, he said, I think, that some might consider him a coward. I can assure him that nothing he said sounded in any way like cowardly behaviour to me.
  I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate on Second Reading for two main reasons. As a Member representing a Bristol constituency, I am well aware of the suffering experienced by parents during the events associated with paediatric surgery at Bristol royal infirmary and during the subsequent Kennedy report on those events. The Minister talked of distress, grief and anger. I certainly agree with her about that. Taken with the somewhat similar occurrences at Alder Hey, those events created the impetus to produce the Bill that we are considering today, which ought to ensure that the stress and pain associated with relatives discovering that organs had been retained from their dead loved ones' bodies—without their consent—does not happen again. I very much welcome that, as does almost everyone in Bristol.
  My second particular interest is almost professional, in that before being elected to the House I worked as a research immunologist for more than 30 years. My work was mostly in pathology departments and frequently made use of human lymphocytes, lymph node tissue and occasionally other small pieces of human tissue. I know that the uses to which those pieces of tissue were put were at least sometimes of benefit either to the individuals concerned or to other people in the wider sense, and occasionally for both purposes. It is unlikely that specific consent was given for such procedures in every case—hon. Members should remember that I am going back more than 30 years—although I suspect that in almost all cases it would have been freely given if it had been properly sought, albeit that it would not always have been possible.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) outlined clearly in his excellent speech the importance of being able to use small quantities of living tissue for experimental and investigative purposes. That conclusion was reinforced by the examples outlined succinctly and clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson).
  Although it is clear that the public need to be confident that strict guidelines and procedures are in place to control the use of organs and tissues both from cadaveric and living donors—whether to be used for transplantation, teaching or research purposes—it is crucial that regulations and guidelines are not drawn so restrictively that they inhibit necessary and worthwhile clinical medicine and research.
  I have received two letters that illustrate that dilemma. One is from a distinguished emeritus professor of pathology at Cambridge, who believes that the Bill is too long, too complex and badly drafted. He believes that
  "we have lost sight of the proper balance of the rights of the individual and the rights of society".

  1035
  Others will have seen copies of the second letter from a consultant histopathologist in Manchester, to which the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) has already referred. He is concerned that while agreeing that the provisions of the Bill regarding tissues from the deceased are entirely laudable, there will be problems in dealing with some aspects of the use of tissues taken from living donors. He says:
  "The distinctions between diagnosis, teaching, quality assurance, audit and research are simply not as clear-cut as one might at first think and there are dangers of both defensive practice by pathologists withdrawing from activities which might put them at risk, and also of criminal prosecution for entirely harmless and socially beneficial activities. I would like to see a clear separation between the retention and uses of tissues from the deceased, which is highly emotive for some, and the use of surplus material by NHS laboratories for the common good, which should be allowed to continue without the threat of criminal sanctions."
  Although I do not necessarily agree with everything in that and some other quotations that we have heard this afternoon, it seems to me that some improvements can be made to this Bill, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister intends to be flexible in Committee.
  I know that the Minister has made it clear that she does not see this Bill as a suitable vehicle for the introduction of presumption of consent permission, particularly for organ donation purposes. That is a pity—I have supported such a change for a very long time. I understand why she says that, however. Perhaps it would complicate the Bill too much, and even make it too controversial. It is really good to have all-party support for such an important measure, and I understand why she does not want to prejudice it. I hope, however, that she does not intend to include any provisions in the Bill or subsequent regulations and guidelines that will make its eventual introduction more difficult or even impossible.
  5.24 pm
  Nick Harvey: I, too, welcome the introduction of the Bill. I have taken an interest in these matters since I was involved in the mid-1990s in helping to uncover the events at the Bristol royal infirmary. It is worth remembering that the parents involved at Bristol went through three subsequent sessions of anguish: first, losing a baby, which is a tragedy in itself; then, some years later, discovering that it was not simply an accident, as they had thought, but part of a wider picture; and, some years after that, coming to terms with the extraordinary news that they had buried babies who were not complete and, without their knowledge, had had parts removed. I want to pay tribute particularly to my constituent, Mrs. Michaela Willis, who, having gone through all that, still found the energy to campaign for an inquiry into the events at Bristol.
  I congratulate the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on setting up that inquiry, thus honouring a commitment made by his Conservative predecessor, who had pledged that such an inquiry would be held after the GMC proceedings. I also pay tribute to Professor Kennedy, who diverted slightly from his remit to consider this important matter and report on it separately.
  1036
  When what had been happening arrived in the public domain, people were astonished. When it became clear that it had been relatively common practice for years and had been going on more or less anywhere, they became more and more astonished and indignant. Immediately after that, the chief medical officer conducted a survey to establish just how widespread the practice had been and how far it had gone. We had meetings here with groups from all over the country who were worried about what had been going on in their local hospitals.
  As a result of all those events, the relationship between the medical professions and patients has changed significantly. I do not think that things will ever be quite the same after the events of Bristol. Of course this is not the only factor in the change in the relationship between patients and doctors; the growth of medical information on the internet, for example, has made patients much better informed. The idea that the doctor is always right is part of a paternalistic tradition that, I am glad to say, seems now to be fading.
  Many Members have spoken of the importance of striking a balance. They are right: no one wants to thwart medical progress. Recent developments in medical science have already necessitated the use of tissue that has been retained for many years. Who can say what may happen in the next few years? Who can say what new diseases or threats we may uncover, and what scientific breakthroughs may be made? In such circumstances, going back and looking at tissue could be valuable. We must not establish a regime that would prevent that, would traumatise professionals, or would simply make the process of obtaining consent for their important work too cumbersome.
  What is most important is the position of patients and relatives, and the principle of informed consent that the Bill rightly attempts to introduce. There is copious evidence that many grieving relatives are only too willing to give consent—that, indeed, they derive comfort from the thought that some good will come from the use of organs or tissue from their loved ones for the benefit of others who may not have to suffer in the same way. It is, however, essential for us to ensure that the arrangements for consent are comprehensive, that consent is informed, that it is obtained sensitively and—as the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) said—that the arrangements are not so heavy-handed that they are impossible to administer.
  Presumed consent has been raised several times today. Let me say to those in favour of it that there is a real danger of our undoing the basic good that the Bill tries to do. We are trying to bring about a new climate, a new atmosphere of informed consent and a new relationship between patients and doctors. There is a real risk that presumed consent could undermine that. The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) said how easy it was to throw away trust, and how difficult it was to gain it. I merely sound a warning bell to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and others about the risk of undoing some of the good that the Bill aims to achieve.
  Let me also say that the public are nowhere near ready for a system under which they would be expected to opt out. There is not nearly enough public understanding. There would have to be a huge campaign of information and education for people to make sense of the system

  1037
  and participate in it. Such a campaign would always bring us full circle. As the Minister suggested, that, rather than the legal aspects, might bring about a transformation in organ availability. She pointed out that what was happening in Spain might be more to do with the boost in availability there than with the law itself.
  I have an old school friend, also a constituent, who has been waiting a long time for a kidney transplant. As far as I can see, he is going to have to wait much longer. He shared one of his concerns with me. He was told—I am not sure that it is still the case—that if people are killed in a road traffic accident in the more remote parts of the west country, even though they have a donor card, have signed up and are on the register, the practical arrangements are simply not in place—in such a sparsely populated area with so many miles of road—to get the organs into the medical system to benefit someone who can make use of them. Much work remains to be done—I entirely accept that the Government have already embarked on some of the necessary good work—on improving the practical arrangements of organ donation.
  There is a danger of thinking that the presumed consent issue will be some sort of magical solution; in truth, I am not convinced that it will. I shall keep an open mind when it comes to any votes, but I believe that a warning needs to be sounded that it will not be a magical panacea.
  Having said that, the Bill stands every opportunity of providing a valuable legacy for those whose organs were improperly retained and for grieving relatives who went through so much pain, but fought on to see this Bill introduced. It is incumbent on the House to get the detail right. Some hon. Members will deliberate on the Bill in Committee, and I wish them well in that task.
  5.31 pm
  Dr. Andrew Murrison: The Opposition welcome the Bill. It is a good Bill, and we have had a good debate. Twelve Back Benchers have spoken and, more importantly, we have heard speeches of real quality. That is just as well, because the pre-legislative input that we called for did not happen. As a consequence, the Bill has been robbed of the expert and informed contribution of people in the know in a complex and sensitive field. However, we are where we are, and we have to move on; and today's debate has been characterised by good humour and general consent. Indeed, the Bill is all about consent, drawing as it does on the Kennedy and Redfern inquiries into the unsatisfactory state of affairs at the Bristol royal infirmary and at Alder Hey in Liverpool.
  In our general enthusiasm for the Bill, however, we should also be aware of the possible hurdles that it could put in the way of medical research, education and all the things that we hope will deliver us a better tomorrow. The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), with his long experience in these matters, reminded us firmly of that.
  Between 1979 and 1985, I was in the foothills of my medical career at Bristol. Looking back, I can well recognise the patrician mind-set that led to the distressing circumstances revealed by Kennedy. To be fair to health professionals, they have gone a long way
  1038
  to put their own house in order, and I am pleased that they have largely welcomed this attempt to put good practice on a statutory footing.
  I should like to deal with presumed consent. Although it is not expressly in the Bill, it has been raised by several right hon. and hon. Members. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)—I see that he is not in his place—supported it so well, and the hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and for Bristol, North-West (Dr. Naysmith) also supported it. In two notable Back-Bench contributions, the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) took a contrary line. All hon. Members who were present would acknowledge that my hon. Friend's speech will remain with them for some time. All hon. Members bring valuable experiences to the House, and my hon. Friend demonstrated the value of them in his contribution. The Bill, as I understand it, is about making consent explicit and fully informed—or it is nothing. Presumed consent, I submit, is no consent at all.
  We certainly need more organs to be donated, as the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) said in his contribution. Although the majority of people are in favour of organ donation, many of us would be uncomfortable with the appropriation of body parts by the state in the manner that appears to be favoured by the British Medical Association. I hope that the Bill will help to restore confidence in the gifting of body parts, not make the public more suspicious of what for many, particularly in the light of recent events, is a shady, even slightly sinister, domain. For those people, the doctrine of presumed consent would not help.
  For our part, we suggest a stronger role for the Human Tissue Authority in the popularisation of voluntary organ donation, and we are disappointed that that is poorly reflected in the Bill's wording. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe mentioned the organ donor card and its status in, his contribution—an issue that, I must confess, had not occurred to me. I am sure that we will examine that issue very closely in Committee, and table amendments that will improve the card's status, thereby increasing, we hope, the number of organs available for donation.
  In response to the Adjournment debate led by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on 29 April last year, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) said that the Human Tissue Act 1961 was "unclear" and "ambiguous". I was given a copy of it earlier today. It extends to two and a half sides of A4—how different from the measure before us today! Nevertheless, it was apparently unclear and ambiguous. In contrast, the hon. Lady promised us that, before the summer break, draft proposals would be available for parliamentary scrutiny that were "unambiguous and transparent". I regret that in both timing and intention, the Government have fallen well short of their laudable intentions.
  The Bill is remarkably difficult to navigate, given that it is meant to lend clarity to the obscurities relating to the removal, storage and use of body parts. A number of organisations have voiced concerns, several of which we

  1039
  have heard today. There is a real risk that the vagueness of the Bill's wording and its lack of clarity in places will act as a disincentive to engaging in legitimate research and teaching based on human material. We will urge improvements on Ministers, to ensure that those working for our benefit—researchers and clinical teachers—do not feel that the heavy hand of the law will for ever be resting on their shoulder. The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said in his excellent contribution that lawyers should be kept out of hospitals unless they are patients. He might have added that we should do what we can to keep doctors out of the law courts.
  Cancer Research UK is worried that those making career choices in research are already inclining towards basic science, in preference to the clinical research that would embroil them in regulation and bureaucracy and the possibility of legal dispute. It has noted the implications for cancer registries of the Data Protection Act 1998 and the forthcoming implementation of the EU clinical trials directive, and fears that this latest initiative will add to the wheelbarrow of material that is preventing it from doing what it wants to do—improve the lot of people with cancer. That is the very last thing that those involved with Alder Hey would want.
  It is important to point out that much of the distress caused by Alder Hey had less to do with the removal of organs than with the fact that they were stored and not turned to any great purpose. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) will relate to that point, given his obvious constituency interest. Indeed, we are told that many parents would have been far less troubled had organs been used, and at least some good had come from their removal.
  In examining the Bill, we must constantly remind ourselves that the general public apply different significance and weight to various types of human material, and to the various ways in which it may be handled and used. For most people, blocks and slides of tumour removed during surgery are a world apart from a cadaver in an anatomy suite, or a child's heart in a pot in a medical school. For most people, surgically removed tissue is uncontested waste. Few owners will agonise, for example, over the fate of a necrotising section of malignant colon, but the removal of an organ—diseased or otherwise—from a loved one after death has a completely different psychological and emotional context. It is important that the Bill in its final form reflects that reality.
  The Bill does not take the opportunity to deal in any depth with the human anatomical displays that can pass as art in UK galleries. The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen)—he is not in his place—enthused about the activities of Professor Gunther von Hagens and his "Bodyworlds". But it is probably true to say that what one might describe as the Damien Hirst school of anatomy sails fairly close to the wind legally, and it is certainly regarded by many as not being in particularly good taste. With that in mind, I am not sure that so-called "qualifying" museums should be accorded the special status and freedom from licensing given by the Bill, as to do so would deny easy access by the Human Tissue Authority and its inspectors. We must bear it in mind that Professor Gunther von Hagens
  1040
  may hold exhibitions in the future and that an obvious place for them to be held would be in a qualifying museum.
  We should remember that post-mortem suites, medical school dissecting rooms, research laboratories and their staff are already multiply regulated, scrutinised and licensed for all manner of things. Why then, when constructing the Bill, was so little attention paid to areas that are, arguably, far more opaque?
  I am concerned about the lack of scrutiny of imported material and am worried that that could lead to exploitation. I recall with affection the skeleton that accompanied me throughout my medical school career. The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) has a similar recollection, but unlike him I have no idea where my skeleton is now. At the time, however, I was informed that, like hundreds of others, it came from the Indian subcontinent to circumvent the difficulties that arise in this country from the process of skelatinisation. The Minister will probably say that that loophole—if loophole it is—is a matter for a code of practice, but I fear that the Bill leaves so many aspects to be covered by codes of practice in future that the House can have but little idea of what the actual landscape that will eventually result will look like.
  The failure to make words crystal clear in the Bill risks repeating the mistakes of the Human Tissue Act 1961. I shall set out a few examples, starting with the notion of appropriate consent. Organisations that we have consulted are concerned that future research needs, of a sort that we may not be able to anticipate at present, may be precluded because of the difficulties inherent in the notion of appropriate consent. There is, for example, confusion in the Bill about the use of existing specimens for DNA work. It is necessary to be more explicit about the nature of consent so that researchers, institutions and charities have the confidence to proceed with their work, which will, in any case, be subject to the rigours of local ethics committees.
  The Bill does not really get to grips with licensing. We can all understand both the need for proper premises and that they should be licensed and inspected, but does the Minister have in mind an institution, a building or just a suite of rooms? Under extant legislation, there are licensed teachers, who are hands-on—I remember them well from my time at medical school; they were doctors who carried out dissections and taught students and were very much in control of the situation. The Bill does not indicate who our future licensees will be: will they be chief executives of hospital trusts or pathologists on the shop floor? We do not know. What responsibility will the licensees have for end users—for research workers from Cancer Research UK, for example? Representatives from that organisation and from the Wellcome Trust kindly met several of us last night.
  The Bill refers to "relevant material", but we are left with no great understanding of its authors' intentions. Human cells seem to be a common thread, but does that include acellular serum and plasma, which, for their owners, are just as much blood as whole blood is? Why should cell lines be excluded? They may be created outside the human body but they are still very much related to the donor of the index tissue. Too much in the Bill defaults to codes of practice, and too much latitude is given to Secretaries of State to amend it by order at some future date.

  1041
  In conclusion, I commend the Minister of State for introducing the Bill, with which my party is in general agreement. There are certainly some rough edges that might have been smoothed out during the pre-legislative scrutiny that we did not get, but we look forward to contributing in Committee so that the next time the measure comes before the House it will hold the confidence of the public, the research community and health professionals.
  5.44 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): If the House will forgive me, I shall begin by quoting something that the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) has just said:
  "The Opposition welcome the Bill. It is a good Bill".
  I repeated that because I never expected to hear those words in the Chamber and I never expect to hear them again.
  The hon. Gentleman's words sum up the tone of the debate. Members on both sides of the House have contributed their knowledge, experience and wisdom. The mood of the debate was constructive and it is clear that it will be followed by an interesting Committee stage, to which I greatly look forward.
  Before I get into my speech proper, I want to pick up on one thing that the hon. Member for Westbury said. He said that Cancer Research UK claimed that there was evidence already that people who were deciding about their careers were choosing to steer away from clinical science in favour of basic science. The reason for that was that they feared getting involved in the difficulties that this Bill might impose.
  I am a scientist. I know scientists—I have worked with them all my life, until I became a Member of Parliament in 1997—and I do not buy that for a second. I do not believe that such considerations feature on people's radar screens when they are making their choice of career.
  If we are to have a constructive debate, in Committee and with scientists outside the House, we must all avoid hyperbole. It is important that we try to ensure that everyone understands what the Bill is about, and what its impact will be.
  Dr. Murrison: The Minister needs to speak to Cancer Research UK, as I am sure he has in the past. I spoke to the organisation as recently as this morning. I understand that its survey of the vast number of students whom it is sponsoring for PhDs and other higher degrees has shown that about 70 per cent. are seriously considering doing basic science rather than clinical science, for the reasons that I outlined. I can do no better than quote Cancer Research UK.
  Dr. Ladyman: I have no doubt that the organisation reported those figures. I simply do not believe them, or the survey. My extensive experience of talking to people making career choices in science makes it hard for me to believe that such considerations make it on to their radar screens. However, we must not get bogged down in that.
  The background to this Bill is scandal. The organs of children and adults were routinely kept after postmortem examinations, without the knowledge of
  1042
  families. That was unacceptable, and the distress that it caused was immense. A practice that resulted in such tragedy for so many families may once have had its place, but it certainly has no place in today's health service.
  The hon. Member for Westbury referred to the patrician mindset that dictated how many people involved in clinical practice at the time made their judgments. That mindset is not acceptable now.
  The expectations of individuals and families are, quite rightly, that they should know what is happening. They should be consulted, and they should consent. Practice had to change, and it has changed, but the damage has been done. Families have discovered—sometimes many years later—that they did not bury their loved ones in the way that they had believed and expected.
  Many hon. Members have spoken about their constituency experiences, and the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) recounted the distressing experiences of some of his constituents. The Bristol and Alder Hey inquiries, and the Isaacs report, exposed not a bungle or a mix-up, but a scandal. We would be failing in our duty if we did not take steps to address it.
  Of course, as the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) said, pathology is an honourable profession. I would go further, and say that it is a vital profession. However, we do it no justice by ignoring the mistakes that have been made. I am delighted that the mood of the House is that we should not ignore those mistakes and that we should move forward with this Bill.
  In January 2001, the chief medical officer published his recommendations, and the Government accepted them in their entirety. That has led to a range of linked initiatives, including the establishment, in April 2001, of the Retained Organs Commission to oversee the return of organs, to give guidance to trusts, and to give support and advocacy to families.
  The Government published new post-mortem consent forms, and a code of practice on communication with families. We have allocated £2.7 million per year in the current spending round for trusts to use in the development of bereavement services. We are also supporting an ongoing programme of professional education and training and public education.
  There have been changes and improvements in practice, and more are taking place right now, but the Bill is needed to secure them firmly for the future. That is why we looked at the whole picture and prepared a Bill that is comprehensive and forward looking. But we have not done it alone. Through extensive consultation, we have found much consensus among family groups, professionals and other bodies, and we are pleased to have had a strong contribution from family support groups throughout the country. We also received good support from many groups, including those from Liverpool, Birmingham, Cambridge, Plymouth and Oxford, all of which helped in putting together a well prepared and welcome Bill.
  I was happy to hear the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) commit the Opposition to working co-operatively to get the Bill right. Certainly,

  1043
  the Government intend to do that. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Dr. Naysmith) asked whether we were open minded. As he knows, my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have well deserved reputations for always being prepared to compromise, to see the other guy's point of view, and to go the extra mile to achieve consensus; and I doubt that our approach to the remaining stages of this Bill will be any different.
  The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said that people often act in a way that they believe to be benign. He is absolutely right—the road to hell can be paved with good intentions. That is why we have to balance the rights of individuals against the needs of researchers.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked, rightly, why we did not have pre-legislative scrutiny. We had hoped to do so, and to publish a Bill earlier, but it was simply impossible because drafting resources were unavailable. We therefore had to make a judgment call—do we balance the need for scrutiny against the needs of the families who are demanding that we make progress? We decided that making progress was more important than publishing the Bill in draft. However, given that we undertook two rounds of thorough consultation to reach this stage, we are not lacking the necessary level of scrutiny; and the Committee will provide a further opportunity to consider the Bill and to get it absolutely right.
  Several hon. Members, including the hon. Members for South Cambridgeshire and for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West, accused us of making the Bill too complicated or convoluted. It replaces several pieces of legislation, including the Anatomy Act 1984, the Human Tissue Act 1961 and the Human Organ Transplants Act 1989, and provides a single legislative framework in an area where there is confusion and uncertainty. If that was not the case—if the current legislation had the degree of clarity that we are trying to achieve—would we face this problem or have had these scandals? Of course not.
  Although the Bill has its complexities, as does all legislation, it is important that we make the effort to try to get it right. I believe that it is simple and understandable, and that we will be able to explain it to the scientific community and to give them the reassurances that they seek. We have tried to make it as flexible as possible in order that it should, I hope, last as long as the Acts that it replaces, and several right hon. and hon. Members alluded to that. Instead of trying to include all the possibilities and to predict everything that science may throw at us in the coming decades, we have created codes of practice that can be changed as good practice changes. That is the right way forward.
  The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire pointed out that the status of grandparents in the consent hierarchy is missing. I give him a commitment that we will consider that in Committee.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) discussed whether consent would be wide and long lasting. He talked about the future uses of material and pointed out, as did the hon.
  1044
  Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), that some discoveries relied on the fact that people were able to go back to old material. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) gave some specific examples of that. The question was put whether medical staff must constantly return to relatives to obtain consent if new uses for material arise. The Bill sets out the fact that consent is needed for the use of tissue in research, but it does not limit the duration and breadth of the consent, so we would not expect patients to have to be revisited for further consents. I hope that that reassures them.
  The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam correctly raised the issue of bereavement services. The Government demand that NHS staff be sensitive to the needs of bereaved people when they gather consents, whether for organ donations or any other reason. He asked me a specific question about a follow-up survey, and we are supporting a survey, which I am pleased to tell him will begin in the spring.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson), the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon all raised the issue of presumed consent. I suspect that we will return to that many times over the coming weeks, so I will not go into it in great detail. My hon. Friend raised the need to close the gap between demand for and availability of organs. I assure him that we are taking positive steps to increase the availability of organs. We have already made significant progress in reducing the gap between supply and demand without the need for presumed consent.
  The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) made a moving and very brave contribution to the presumed consent debate—I doubt whether I could have made that speech if I were in his position. I congratulate him on giving us the other side of the presumed consent issue. I say to those who support presumed consent that, if we own nothing else in this world, we own our bodies. There is no question but that we have the right to determine how our bodies are used in life and how they end up in death. If we move to a system that challenges that ethical principle, we will make a significant mistake.
  The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon challenged the Government on whether in certain circumstances we might drop our objections to presumed consent. In return, I have a challenge for him: will he drop his campaign for presumed consent if we can show him in Committee that progress can be made without presumed consent, because it would not add significantly to the availability of organs, as he believes and hopes?
  Dr. Evan Harris: Yes, I will.
  Dr. Ladyman: We have another area of agreement.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Has the Minister had time to take further advice on the Bill's effect on donor cards? Will carrying a donor card be sufficient evidence of consent so that other objections can be overruled if relatives disagree or cannot be found?
  Dr. Ladyman: Carrying a donor card would take precedence, but since we would need to survey relatives

  1045
  for screening purposes and would never perform a transplant against the strong wishes of a relative whether or not we had presumed consent, in practice the situation would not change. As far as the Bill is concerned, the donor card is a clear statement of the individual's preference.
  I shall correct one other point mentioned by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe. He said that the Transplant Partnership supports presumed consent, but I can tell him that it does not—it is the British Medical Association that supports presumed consent.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) asked whether the code will be enforceable in law. Not following the codes of practice will not trigger proceedings, but the authority may take not doing so into account when it comes to issuing, reviewing or withdrawing licences. I hope that I have dealt with most of the points that have been raised; we will deal with the other points in Committee. I strongly commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.

  HUMAN TISSUE 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 Human Tissue Bill:

  HUMAN TISSUE 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 Thursday 5th 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 messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Mr. Kemp.]
    Question agreed to.

  HUMAN TISSUE 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 Human Tissue Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
  (a) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the Act, and
  (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.—[Mr. Kemp.]
  Question agreed to.

  HUMAN TISSUE BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]
  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 Human Tissue Bill, it is expedient to authorise charges in connection with licences under the Act.—[Mr. Kemp.]
  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

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
    That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Common Electoral Principles) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 11th December, be approved.—[Mr. Kemp.]
    Question agreed to.

    WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE
    Ordered,
    That the Draft Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2003 (S.I., 2003, No. 3242) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Kemp.]

  DRAFT DISABILITY BILL (JOINT COMMITTEE)
  Ordered,
  That the Lords Message of 17th December relating to a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider and report on the draft Disability Discrimination Bill presented to both Houses on 3rd December (Cm. 6058) be now considered.
  That this House concurs with the Lords that it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider and report on the draft Disability Discrimination Bill presented to both Houses on 3rd December (Cm. 6058), and that the Committee should report on the draft Bill by the end of April 2004.
  That a Select Committee of six honourable Members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider the draft Disability Discrimination Bill.
  That the Committee shall have power—

  (i) to send for persons, papers and records;

  (ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;

  (iii) to report from time to time;

  (iv) to appoint specialist advisers; and

  (v) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom.

  That the quorum of the Committee shall be two; and
  That Miss Anne Begg, Mr Roger Berry, Mr Tom Clarke, Mr Paul Goodman, Tom Levitt and Mr Roger Williams be members of the Committee.—[Mr. Kemp.]

Dr. Raj Mattu
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kemp.]
6 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: First, may I say how grateful my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) and I are to Mr. Speaker for granting the debate? My hon. Friend wishes to contribute to the debate, although we are both conscious that we must allow time for the Minister to respond.
This is the third debate that we have had on the Walsgrave trust and the suspension of Dr. Mattu. On 20 March 2002, shortly after Dr. Mattu was suspended, we held a debate in which we welcomed the new management at the hospital and said that we hoped that the suspension would not be a repeat of the previous two—one ended in the vindication of Mr. Alban Barros D'Sa after nearly two years. Unfortunately, our hopes have been shattered and we are in the same position as we were during the second debate, which was held on 28 October 2003, when we could see that little, if any, progress was being made. During that debate, we asked the trust management, the NHS and the National Clinical Assessment Authority to make every effort to resolve the problem by finding a compromise agreement because the soundings that we were receiving were not good.
We are now three months further on—two years into the suspension—and, far from making progress, we have gone backwards. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South will agree that I say that in the light of a meeting that we had on Tuesday of this week with the highest representatives of the NCAA and, indeed, Mr. Ian Stone, who has been appointed by the chief executive of the national health service himself to—as he put it—speed up the job of getting doctors back to work. I am sure that both gentlemen are fine civil servants, but they live in a different world from us. Indeed, I think that they live in a celestial world, so I am reminded of the hymn that goes:
"Oh Lord
A thousand ages in thy sight are like a night gone by".
It seems as though the investigation and those that preceded it have gone on for ages, yet despite the bureaucracy surrounding the case, the NCAA, the NHS, and the trust seem unable to grasp the fact that it costs money and causes pain and aggravation for the people of Coventry. Everyone would agree that the situation has gone on for too long and at too great a cost, and that it has caused too much personal suffering to the doctor involved.
It is all very well to say that suspension is a neutral act, but it is not a neutral act in the real world. It is a harsh act that is imposed on a doctor who thus suffers—perhaps rightly, perhaps wrongly. The fact of that suffering must carry with it a deep moral obligation to expedite the process as quickly as possible. On Tuesday, we quite reasonably asked how much longer the
1048
suspension would last. We were told, as if it did not matter at all, "Oh, at least another six months." Costs will probably therefore greatly exceed £500,000. It will probably be another nine months, or two or even three years before a solution is reached. The parties could have sat round a table at the beginning of this process to reach such a solution, had there been the will to do so. I shall return to that in a moment.
Essentially, the charges amount to bullying of a subordinate doctor by his superior. Bullying is a serious charge, and I do not wish to minimise its significance. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), who is in the Chamber, is Deputy Chief Whip, but when he was just a Whip he was accused of bullying somebody in the Lobby. We did not take three years to sort that out—it was done via the usual channels in a week or two. So why is it taking so long to sort out Dr. Mattu's case? The National Audit Office has pointed out that £14 million has been wasted on suspensions. The Government and the NHS have finally been prodded into action by issuing many new guidelines to speed up the processing of suspensions.
However, those guidelines cannot help us in this case. We were told on Tuesday that we could not invoke them as the matter had gone too far. I want to alert the NHS and the NCAA to a new development. Dr. Mattu's principal accuser, Dr. Gieowarsingh, has now been reported to the General Medical Council—I cannot comment on the rights and wrongs of the allegation, just as I cannot do so in the other case—for serious misrepresentation on his CV. We will not prejudge the outcome or comment on the case, but we understand that the GMC is likely to respond and commission its own inquiry. There is therefore an inquiry into Dr. Mattu's chief accuser, and Dr. Mattu himself has been suspended for two years.
I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister is aware of the nature of the allegations against Dr. Gieowarsingh, which have been forwarded to my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry, North-East and for Coventry, South, as well as me. I shall not trouble the Minister with them now, but I shall send them on to him in case they have not reached his office. To use layman's terms, it appears that Dr. Gieowarsingh may have exaggerated the number of his quasi-surgical interventions by a factor of between three and five. There is therefore the prospect of new allegations, counter-allegations and an investigation of the person who called for the initial investigation. Neither the House, nor the Minister, nor anyone concerned could view such a prospect with equanimity.
I therefore urge the trust, via the Minister's good offices, to proceed carefully. It appears that it has looked at the allegations against Dr. Gieowarsingh which have been in existence for some time, and agreed on the nature of the figures that I shall send to the Minister. When it talked to staff—those conversations are not documented or recorded, and I am not aware of any signed affidavits—it concluded that he had performed far more procedures than were recorded. We have to wait to see what the GMC will make of that—I do not want to prejudge the outcome, as I have already said. It

1049
will also have to take into account representations by the clinical director at Walsgrave and David Edwards of the University Hospital of Wales, the hospital to which Dr. Gieowarsingh moved. Walsgrave has said that none of the allegations against Dr. Gieowarsingh calls into question the integrity of his CV.
We shall have to wait for the outcome of that case, but the prospect is a big mess—more costs, more delay and more personal suffering, which is to be shared by those who inflicted it on Dr. Mattu. However, there is an alternative, as a compromise agreement could be reached. If a compromise is to be successful, as I said in the Adjournment debate on 28 October last year, it must involve two things. First, allegations must be dropped by both sides—there can be no fault and no admission of fault. Secondly, it must reflect sincerity and good will on both sides. It is no good the trust asking where all the information came from, as one of our purposes as elected representatives in the House is to make representations on behalf of people who feel that their voices are not being heard. So it is no good the trust objecting to our using that information.
If the trust wants to know where the information comes from, I will tell it. It comes from Dr. Buckley, who is Dr. Mattu's GP. Dr. Buckley has circulated all that information to everyone involved, including the Prime Minister. I think that the only person to be exempted from his intentions is Her Majesty the Queen herself. Everyone else knows everything. He writes, quite clearly, that the trust recommended, as part of the so-called compromise agreement, that Dr. Mattu should see Professor Flahey. I called up his record on the internet, and he is an expert in pathological tendencies. So perhaps the trust got the two doctors mixed up: perhaps it thought that Dr. Shipman should be counselled, not Dr. Mattu—I do not know, but clearly neither of those points in any way shows good will on the part of the trust. So we are doubtful, and I think that I speak for my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South, who will speak in a few minutes' time. Everyone agrees that those two aspects of the so-called compromise that we can now bring into the public domain have to eliminated if the agreement is to be seen as genuine.
There is an alternative: perhaps those involved cannot bring themselves to settle on reasonable terms for whatever reason—perhaps loss of face or other irrelevant personal considerations. I do not understand why that should be so because, after all, the chief executive was not even there when Dr. Mattu was suspended, although the chairman was. Indeed, the case dates back to the previous chief executive, who left the trust precisely on the grounds of intimidating, bullying and suspended doctors, as about six of our colleagues know, and some of them have joined us this evening.
If the trust cannot enter into the spirit of compromise, the alternative is that we should have an independent investigation—but a genuinely independent one, not one commissioned by the trust, or under the auspices of the NHS or the NCAA, all of which seem to be on the side of the trust. This has become a confrontational arrangement, as nothing about suspension is neutral. How can it be neutral? The doctor was accused of something one day and was suspended one and a half days later. That does not even allow for the barest examination of the merits of the case.
1050
I am sure that a compromise would be every hon. Member's preferred solution, as it is in the House. Otherwise, let us have an independent investigation and face all the resulting consequences, which would be grave for the trust, grave for Dr. Mattu and, indeed, grave for the public interest.
6.12 pm
Mr. Jim Cunningham: First, I join my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) in thanking Mr. Speaker for granting us this Adjournment debate tonight. Secondly, I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. I shall not repeat what he said because he has covered the issue adequately, and I am conscious of the fact that we want to try to give the Minister adequate time to respond because it is no good our having a debate without a proper response. That is what the debate is all about.
We recognise that a lot of good things have happened, certainly since the change in chairman of Walsgrave hospital. I would not want to detract from the fact that a lot of positive things have happened at that hospital. I want to make it perfectly clear—I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree with this—that this is not an attack on staff or anything like that and it is not necessarily an attack on the management, but some of us come into politics because we have a sense of justice and we want to see justice done. It is not for us to judge who is right or wrong in this case, but I am alarmed that this is probably the third case that we have been involved in that has taken nearly two years to resolve.
Of course hon. Members will know that, fairly recently, the National Audit Office drew attention to the costs in these cases and to the length of the procedures. In fact, it made about 10 or perhaps 12 recommendations, if I remember correctly off the top of my head. In fairness to the Government, I have to say that they have made suggestions on implementing some of those recommendations. However, I would disagree with the Government about the six-month time frame. Most cases could be resolved in about three months. Many years ago, I used to be involved in industrial relations—I am not an expert in them, but I have a shrewd idea of how those things can be conducted.
Given that there had been a change at the top at Walsgrave, we took the view that the slate should have been wiped clean. The charges against Dr. Mattu were made before the new arrangements came in at Walsgrave, and we must be clear about that. I hope that the panel that has been set up will be totally independent, and I want reassurance from the Minister on that. We know that a list is used, but we have not had too much detail on that.
My second concern is that, if the panel recommends reinstatement, we do not have the situation in which the trust says no. That has happened before in one or two cases, but I hope that, in this case, the trust will feel bound to accept a person back into a job that he is well qualified to do. In fact, anyone who has considered Dr. Mattu's qualifications knows that he is extremely well qualified.

1051
That leads me to the next point that I hope the Minister will consider. Given that the doctor was not suspended for medical incompetence—on the contrary, he is an able cardiac specialist—I would have thought that the investigation should have been carried out before the suspension was proceeded with. However, in this and other cases, someone is suspended straight away and the matter may not be resolved for two years. The individual and his family suffer much hardship and, whatever we might think about the individuals involved, we must recognise the effect on their families. The Minister should seriously consider that point. However, when it can be proved that a doctor is guilty of medical incompetence and medical malpractice, it is right and proper that they should be suspended right away. I make that distinction.
My hon. Friend touched on another point that I wish to make. Rough estimates suggest that, over the past two, three or probably four years, the three cases together have probably cost the national health service £1.4 million or £1.5 million. The costs have not stopped yet, because the doctor is still suspended. That is a lot of money that could have been used in a far better way for health service delivery or care.
As I have said in previous debates, it is also strange that someone should be suspended within two or three days of an attempt at whistleblowing. Someone may put their neck on their line to expose something that they think is wrong, and Dr. Mattu exposed the practice in the hospital of what I term "five in a four-bed ward" that has been investigated and may be the subject of further investigations. He certainly thought that patients were at risk, and I am alarmed that suspension should result from that.
One would not have to be a very good shop steward to know that one can put a case together if one is determined to put a case together. That is the easiest thing in the world. The hardest thing in the world is to make a case that stands the test. My hon. Friend has already demonstrated that there are question marks against the case against Dr. Mattu to say the least.
I am conscious of the fact that we want the Minister to have adequate time to reply, but we cannot reinforce often enough the point about these lengthy suspensions. If they relate to a non-medical issue, the doctor should remain in post until such time as the case is properly heard—not the other way around. I have already drawn a distinction on that.
I agree with my hon. Friend that, to re-establish credibility in the personnel system and the disputes procedure, an independent body should have a good look at not necessarily the merits of the three cases, but the way in which they have been handled by the trust. There is a tremendous sense of anger among the public in Coventry not necessarily about who is guilty of what, but about the length of time and the costs that it has taken to try to resolve the matter.
Having made those points that reinforce my hon. Friend's argument, I shall leave the Minister adequate time to reply. However, once again, my hon. Friend and I wish to thank Mr. Speaker.
6.19 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) and for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) on their tenacious campaign to right what they see as an important wrong. Both have substantial experience of trade unions from different aspects, so I challenge them to put themselves in the place of a shop steward representing the individual who originally made complaints against Dr. Mattu and the others who made complaints against him. If they were in the position of that shop steward, would they be happy to listen to the comments that have just been made? Would they be happy to reinstate somebody against whom serious complaints have been made, knowing that the complainants still have to work in that environment?
Would my hon. Friends be happy to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West make unsubstantiated allegations against an individual involved in this case, knowing that the trust cannot respond like for like because this matter may go to court one day and the trust must make sure that the proceedings are not prejudiced; and knowing that I, as the Minister, cannot respond like for like, because that might prejudice future proceedings? I challenge my hon. Friends to put themselves in the position of people representing the accusers or alleged victims of Dr. Mattu.
Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: I would be unhappy to hear my own remarks but it is entirely right to make them. There was only one accuser and one allegation. Two days after that allegation was made, Dr. Mattu was suspended for alleged victimisation without any investigation, That is the worst practice and procedure to adopt.
Dr. Ladyman: Surely my hon. Friend accepts that whether or not it was appropriate to leave Dr. Mattu in place depends on the nature and seriousness of the allegation. Although there was only one complainant initially, subsequently more than one person was shown to have a grievance against Dr. Mattu. We could debate the case ad nauseam.
My hon. Friend is right to say that it is the job of the House to bring facts into the open but it is also the job of the House to be even-handed. The position in which my hon. Friend places me does not allow me or the trust to be even-handed in the public domain. These matters must be handled in the proper way by due process, allowing both sides to have their say, to allow a judgment to be made.
Mr. Robinson: I take my hon. Friend's argument that it is difficult for him to reply to some points but when it comes to even-handedness, that is precisely the subject of our principal charge against the trust. It has not been even-handed. Dr. Mattu made a number of serious allegations against other people working in the hospital but they have not been investigated. Nobody else has been suspended. Equally, the charges against Dr. Gieowarsingh remain on the table. They have not been properly investigated and the trust refuses to do anything about them.
Dr. Ladyman: Even-handedness is important but I challenge some of my hon. Friend's interpretation of events.

1053
As this is not the first debate on the subject, I shall reiterate some of the points made by the Under-Secretary my hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), when she responded on the last occasion. I will not deal in detail with national health service disciplinary procedures, other than to acknowledge that the Government have already said that they are not fit for the purpose and we are in the process of dramatically transforming them.
I, too, am worried about the length of time that it is taking to resolve the case. Some of Dr. Mattu's supporters alleged that he had been suspended not because of bullying but because he was a whistleblower. It was said in the previous debate that the Government expect a climate of openness and dialogue in the NHS and that we will not tolerate the victimisation of whistleblowers. As part of that, I would expect all NHS employers to operate in the spirit of the guidance that we issued in 1999 and updated in July last year.
I stress at the outset that, after the previous Adjournment debate on the subject, I took note of the points that were made because the hospital falls within my regional responsibilities. I had a meeting with my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry, North-West and for Coventry, South, at which they reinforced many of those points. I looked into the matter and I did not find evidence of improper behaviour by those who decided on the action against Dr. Mattu. After examining the nature of the complaints, and with due regard both to the rights of Dr. Mattu and those of the complainants, whom, I reiterate, appear to be ignored in the debate, I reject the idea that the action resulted from any whistleblowing for which he may have been responsible.
Let me outline the background. Dr. Mattu has been employed at University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire national health service trust since May 1997 as a consultant cardiologist. He was suspended from duty on full pay on 21 February by the then joint medical director at the trust, following allegations of serious bullying. A further allegation was made after Dr. Mattu had been suspended, corroborating the original complaint. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary confirmed, the suspension was and remains neutral, pending investigation of the allegations. I accept the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West that suspension is distressing and not neutral from a personal point of view. However, the circumstances are not ideal.
On the one hand, we have a person against whom serious allegations have been made and, on the other, an individual who believes that they have been victimised and bullied. We have to take into account the best way in which to manage the needs and feelings of both people.
I stress that the complaints against Dr. Mattu are serious and originate from more than one source. They cannot be ignored. If they were swept under the carpet, it would be unfair to those who made the allegations. A formal investigation was therefore conducted in accordance with the trust employment procedures for
1054
clinical staff. They have been agreed by the trust's local negotiating committee and are recognised as fair and appropriate.
During the investigation, statements were taken from people who were identified in the complaints about Dr. Mattu and several interviews were held. Dr. Mattu remains suspended. The joint medical director of the trust has reviewed his suspension fortnightly. After the investigation, an independent panel meeting was held on 30 January 2003, in accordance with trust procedure and agreed with relevant parties, to review the evidence and consider what, if any, further action was necessary on the continuing suspension. The panel undertook a preliminary assessment and found that a prima facie case of personal misconduct needed to be answered.
Dr. Mattu engaged the services of the Hospital Consultants and Specialists Association and a solicitor. The trust has been required to seek legal advice to reduce the risk of any legal breaches that may compromise the progress of the case. Not compromising any future procedures limits the trust's ability to respond publicly to some of the things that Dr. Mattu's supporters allege.
It is fair to say that progress has been slow. That is due to lengthy and complex disputes between the trust, Dr. Mattu and his representatives about the application of trust procedures. Dr. Mattu's unavailability due to sickness has also been a factor in the delays and it is therefore important not to attribute all the delay to the system.
Representatives of West Midlands South strategic health authority met the trust on 30 July 2003 to review the trust's processes and to ensure that the fundamental principles of due process and natural justice had been followed. The meeting was followed by a further meeting with the trust and Ian Stone.
I shall briefly summarise the remaining details of the proceedings because I want to comment on the current position before I have to resume my seat. Ian Stone, who is the chief medical officer's adviser on disciplinary procedures, has also examined the case. He acknowledged that it was complex but he has advised that the only appropriate way in which to resolve it is through the disciplinary process.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West knows that we suggested that a further attempt should he made to obtain a compromise solution. Such an attempt was made early in December. Consequently, meetings were held on 10 and 12 December between the trust and Dr. Mattu. Both sides agreed that the most appropriate way forward was the disciplinary process. I am sorry that Dr. Mattu's support group has tried to portray that differently, but it was a joint decision about the right way in which to proceed. In my view, it is the only possible forward. We must take into account the needs of Dr. Mattu and the accuser. There is no prospect of doing anything other than allowing the disciplinary process to run its course. I know that that will be a great disappointment to my hon. Friends, who have been tenacious about the matter. However, given the complexity of the case, I see no alternative but to allow the disciplinary process to continue.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Six o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR NICHOLAS WINTERTON in the Chair]

Sexual Health
[Relevant documents: Third Report from the Health Committee, Session 2002–03, HC 69; and the Government's response thereto, Cm 5959.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
Sir Nicholas WintertonWe have an important debate this afternoon on the subject of sexual health. At three hours, the debate is fairly lengthy, and I want the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen and the Government spokesman to have adequate time. I hope that that will be borne in mind by all hon. Members who wish to participate. I call the Chairman of the Select Committee on Health to open the debate.
2.31 pm
Mr. David Hinchliffe: Welcome to the Chair, Sir Nicholas. I know that you have long taken an interest in sexual health and health matters in general. I have a concern that I wish to place on the record. You heard my comments in the Liaison Committee this morning about the fact that, unfortunately, our debate has clashed with the Second Reading of a health Bill. That is unsatisfactory, and I hope that note will be taken of the concerns of a number of my colleagues who found themselves having to choose between attending this debate and the one in the main Chamber.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to that matter. In response, I can say only that his comments were noted in the Liaison Committee, and that a Minister is present who will, I am sure, take the message back to those who organise the business of the House. The able Clerk who is sitting on my left has indicated that the matter will be taken up. I hope that we can prevent this from occurring again.
Mr. Hinchliffe: I am grateful for that. I do not hold the Minister responsible. I know that she shares my concern about this matter.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss the report and the Government's response to it. No area of public health in England has suffered a more dramatic and widespread decline in recent years than sexual health, yet that vital area of health care has not yet featured in any significant way in spending programmes or in the Government targets that dictate priorities. The Health Committee welcomed the publication of the Government's national strategy for sexual health and HIV as a foundation for tackling poor sexual health. However, its members swiftly became aware of considerable concern that the problem of sexual ill health had reached crisis proportions and was outgrowing the scope of commitments made in the
330WH
national strategy. We announced our intention to hold an inquiry into sexual health based on an analysis of the strategy at the end of April 2002.
As written evidence began to arrive we prepared for the inquiry by appointing three specialist advisors—Professor Mike Adler from University College medical school, Dr. Anton Pozniak from the Chelsea and Westminster hospital, and Helen Christophers, an independent consultant in sexual health promotion. I want to place on record the Committee's sincere thanks to them for their expert advice, which helped it to negotiate the technical demands of the inquiry and to appreciate more fully the sensitivities involved in these emotive issues. They were not only advisers; they were deeply concerned about the suffering of the many people who have infections and diseases of a sexual nature.
I wish also to thank the Health Committee staff. We are fortunate in being helped by an excellent group of people. They supported us through our inquiry. I pay particular tribute to Jenny McCullough. The second Clerk of the Committee when we held the inquiry, she was primarily responsible for much of the work that we have done. She has moved to another position and we wish her well and thank her for the work that she did on our inquiry.
Tribute is not normally paid to Committee members, but I want to mention three members who were party to this inquiry and have subsequently left the Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) had a particular interest—I was going to say expertise [Laughter.] Perhaps that would have been the wrong word. He was an excellent Committee member and we wish him well in his new role as a Parliamentary Private Secretary. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindoa (Ms Drown), who is here today—I was not aware that she would participate. I had intended to say that, having taken this policy area seriously, she had left the Committee and gone on maternity leave. We are pleased to see her and to know that Ottilie is doing well and making good progress. I am also pleased to see the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley), who was a first-class member of the Committee and one of the key figures in pressing it to undertake the investigation. I thank her for the excellent work that she did.
Turning to the evidence, during our inquiry we received more than 160 written submissions from a wide range of sources, including genito-urinary medicine consultants, academic institutions, charities, members of the public, lobbying groups, royal colleges and pharmaceutical companies. They indicated the widespread nature of the problem and its profound impact on the lives of the many thousands of individuals affected. In addition, between June 2002 and January 2003, we heard from 67 witnesses during 10 evidence sessions.
In the opening sessions, evidence from experts in the epidemiology of sexually transmitted infections and HIV/AIDS—including scientists based at the Public Health Laboratory Service communicable disease surveillance centre—helped to place on record the worrying trends in sexual health. Seeking clarification on the implementation of strategy, we took evidence from Department of Health officials. We heard from clinicians with specialist knowledge of sexual health in primary and secondary care, family planning service

331WH
providers, patient groups, charities, campaigning organisations, and experts on sex and relationships education. In one of our most memorable evidence sessions, we heard from a group of young people aged 15 to 21.
We are grateful to all those who gave evidence, particularly the scientists and clinicians who gave of their time to speak to us. In specialising in this area of health, they embrace a role in disease prevention and in health promotion, and may even act as advocates for those who are affected by poor sexual health. We were struck by their commitment to the work, which was often given at the expense of their own professional development and private time.
Perhaps we are most indebted to the young people, drawn from peer research and support groups in our own constituencies, who gave evidence in January last year. They answered our questions in a full and frank way and approached with enthusiasm and poise what might have been a daunting experience in front of the Committee. We were disappointed that newspaper accounts of that session failed to reflect the thoughtful and articulate nature of the contributions made by those young people to the debate. One witness from the Wakefield area struck me with the strength of her arguments and the articulate way in which she put them over. She disclosed to the Committee that she has a picture of me in her bedroom, so I have great affection for her. She was described in one newspaper article as
"a cross between between Nora Batty and Ena Sharpies."
That denigrated her—all who heard that witness recognised that she had a great deal to say. The contribution of those young people was remarkable. Many of us learned that we in Parliament ought to listen formally to children and young people more often, because we get a great deal from doing so.
John Austin(Lab): I fully concur with my hon. Friend's description of the value of the evidence that we had from consumers and users of services—particularly the young people. Does he share my view that one reason why sexual health services in this country have been allowed to fall to such a low level is that there is not much lobbying in support of those services?
I have been a Member of Parliament for fewer years than my hon. Friend, but in those 11 years, although I have had letters about almost every aspect of the health services, I have had no lobbying from constituents complaining about sexual health services, apart from HIV services. There has been no lobbying about the local clap clinic, or the time that constituents may have had to wait for such service, or the conditions that they may have endured. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that Committees such as the Health Committee take on such issues, about which the consumer's voice is often silent?
Mr. Hinchliffe: I concur entirely with my hon. Friend. I made the point, as did other members of the Committee, that I could not recall receiving one letter about GUM in my time as a Member of Parliament. It
332WH
is not an issue that constituents feel able to raise with Members of Parliament. The worrying situation found in some GUM clinics reinforces the need to ensure that the public and patient involvement aspects of the health service reflect the needs of groups that are not able to articulate their views on sensitive and difficult issues.
When the then Minister for Public Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg), came to the Select Committee, I was gratified to find that both of them had clearly taken note of the merits of the evidence that young people had given to the Committee. I welcome that.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. Does he agree that a patient, especially a young person, who is afraid to see their MP to lobby for services is just as afraid to see their GP, who is often a family friend and well known in the community? Indeed, they are more embarrassed about going to see their GP than they would be about seeing one of us. I hope that he agrees that one of the chief problems is the demise of community health services and family planning clinics, which often acted as a point of referral to sexual health clinics in hospitals.
Mr. Hinchliffe: I was about to come on to that point, on which I concur with the hon. Lady. I appreciate the comments that she has made when I have talked to her about these issues. Her knowledge and experience are highly respected in the House. Later, I shall mention one idea that reflects her concerns that we have followed up: in one part of the country an encouraging development has taken place that offers a model that could be followed.
We made several helpful visits during the inquiry, and both in the United Kingdom and abroad we saw for ourselves what was being done to tackle sexual ill health and the conditions in which individuals receive advice and treatment. We came away from each visit with a great deal of new information about different approaches to sexual health care provision, as well as a vivid impression of the sometimes shocking epidemiological and behavioural trends that underlie the problem.
At Manchester Royal infirmary, we met GUM consultants, clinical staff and public health authority and strategic health authority representatives. We were given a detailed presentation on the numbers presenting themselves for treatment. I recall querying the figures on what was termed "anonymous sex"—I asked whether it referred to the number of patients who were unwilling to disclose partners for tracing. The answer confirmed that in some instances it was, but in most it was patients who did not know who their partners had been. That issue was obviously of concern to the Committee: we must consider the question of personal responsibility.
We also visited the Brook advisory centre in Manchester, where we heard about sexual health services for young people and about the financial difficulties encountered by those who are trying to provide such services in the voluntary sector. We met representatives from the Manchester young people's council, and we were all impressed by the maturity of

333WH
their contributions. They talked to us about sex and relationships education in schools and their concerns about the ambivalent and confusing approach to sex in the media.
In Bolton, we met a health worker who was in contact with sex workers in local saunas. Hearing what she had to say about her work was interesting. We visited the Lighthouse Kings centre in Camberwell, London to hear about the model of HIV care developed by the Caldecot centre and the Terence Higgins trust to provide sexual health services and a wide range of other support services to those living with and affected by HIV.
We heard from staff at the south Bristol walk-in centre and met clinical and managerial leads at the premises of the Milne centre for sexual health. Our visit to the Milne centre was one of the most memorable experiences of the inquiry. We saw for ourselves a situation that had been described to us by many clinicians in formal submissions to the inquiry. The state of the premises in which people were diagnosed and treated and in which clinicians worked was nothing short of appalling. Members of staff told us that they wore extra pairs of socks to protect them from the fleas that infested the clinic. In Exeter during the same visit we heard from clinicians working single-handedly to provide services for large populations in rural areas, which is a stark indication of the severe capacity problem in sexual health services in that area.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), at Paignton community college the Committee saw the Teenage Information Centre-Teenage Advice Centre—known as the Tic Tac project—of which many hon. Members will be aware. The centre is housed in a self-contained bungalow on the site of the college. We met the health and youth work professionals who staff the centre, representatives of the college management, and students at the college. That was an important visit for the Committee. The ease with which the young people could get access to confidential advice on sexual health and other matters, and the appreciation they showed for the service, made a deep impression and helped us to frame some of our recommendations when we were considering our report. Picking up the point that was made about the reluctance, particularly of young people, to go to the family GP, the centre seemed to offer a possible model that could be replicated elsewhere. It is a successful experiment that people in other parts of the country are considering.
In Brussels we learned more about the European context of our inquiry in discussions with the Health Commissioner, David Byrne. With the help of the International Planned Parenthood Foundation network, we came to appreciate the rapid rise in the incidence of STIs across Europe—in particular, the increased incidence of HIV/AIDS in central and eastern Europe. I should like to place on the record the Committee's thanks to Commissioner David Byrne, who is retiring later this year. He has always been willing to meet the Health Committee to discuss various subjects. We appreciate his co-operation on this and other policy areas.
In December 2002 we travelled to Sweden to visit youth health centres that provide comprehensive sexual and reproductive health care for young people. We also
334WH
spoke to teaching staff in a secondary school about provision for relationships and sex education, and about the links between schools and colleges and local youth health centres. We visited staff at the sexual health clinic at the South Stockholm general hospital before travelling on to learn about sexual health services in the Netherlands, which are delivered through municipal health centres as well as through specialist and voluntary services, such as those provided by the HIV Foundation.
Those meetings, and the ones hosted by Government officials, clinicians and epidemiologists working in the field, provided opportunities for us to see at first hand the different approaches to sexual health taken by two socio-economically comparable countries. In particular, it enabled us to see examples of good practice in sexual health services for young people and infectious disease control. We saw the benefit, of a more open discussion of sexual health, compared with the culture of embarrassment and secrecy that still surrounds sexual health in this country.
Joan Ruddock: Has my hon. Friend seen the FPA report showing that most parents support school-based sex and relationships education, and that 60 per cent. believe that children should be taught aged eight to 10, or even younger? Does he agree that if we are to change the attitudes he describes, we need to start in primary schools?
Mr. Hinchliffe: That is a difficult matter for me as a parent, and for all of us who are parents, although most of us have had to deal with it at some point. During the course of the inquiry, I was struck by the message that despite the arguments advanced by some people, there is clear evidence that if children are given good sex education at quite a young age—and I would argue for that in primary education—it is likely that their first involvement in sexual activity will occur later in life, rather than earlier. The perceived wisdom among some people—some witnesses advanced the argument—is that if people are told about it, they do it. That is not true. The evidence shows the opposite is true. I concur with my hon. Friend's point.
Jim Dowd: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of the youth clinics that we visited in Sweden, does he share my view that part of their strength lay in the fact that they operated in a quasi-formal framework? They seemed to be productive and to achieve many of the targets on which we in this country have tried to make progress. Part of the strength of their operation is that they focus on all aspects of youth health and do not pigeonhole sexual health as a separate consideration. Such a separation may be what gives rise to much of the stigma and embarrassment encountered in this country.
Mr. Hinchliffe: I concur entirely with my hon. Friend. The same message came out of the Tic Tac project. If a youngster was seen going into the Tic Tac project building, it was not automatically assumed that they would come out with a packet of condoms. They could have gone in for advice on all sorts of issues. It is important to recognise that advice, assistance and support should be given more widely and not only on

335WH
sexual health. Although we were struck by the positive approaches in Sweden and the Netherlands, we realise that for a variety of reasons public health problems caused by sexual ill health are increasing rapidly even in countries where good practice is to be found.
We published our report on 11 June last year, after several weeks of deliberation. There was strong consensus among colleagues on the Committee about our main findings and conclusions, but despite the strong messages that emerged during the inquiry, it took considerable time to frame those findings, which were drawn from the evidence that we took over 10 sessions and from all that we saw on six visits. We received the Government's response to our report on 10 September, and we can now review our recommendations and our expectations of the relevant Departments in the light of that response.
When gathering evidence for the inquiry, we saw a picture even more bleak that that which convinced us to undertake the inquiry in the first place. In the first part of our report, we sought to place on record the extent of the decline in sexual health in England. The facts spoke for themselves: at the time of our inquiry, about one in 10 sexually active young women, and a great many young men, were infected with chlamydia; syphilis rates had increased by 500 per cent. in the previous six years and the rates for gonorrhoea had doubled; HIV remained the most important communicable disease in the UK, with an estimated 6,500 new diagnoses in 2002; and rates of teenage pregnancy in this country were still the highest in Europe.
Our report also set out to show how sexual health services were fighting to cope with the crisis and how patients and staff were suffering as a result. It was striking that although we received a great many representations from clinicians and health professionals, we had little evidence from patients. We accepted that the reason for that is that people are not prepared to come forward and talk about that area of ill health. Given the stigma attached to sexual health problems, and given that sexual ill health tends to follow the fault lines of social exclusion, we understood that patients might be reluctant or unable to complain. We felt strongly that the Committee should therefore complain on their behalf and call for a greater awareness of patients' experiences of sexual health services.
We heard of and saw for ourselves clinics where waiting times for an appointment were 10 days or more, and where hundreds of people were turned away every week. It was obvious to us that suspected STIs should be diagnosed and treated as soon as possible to prevent onward transmission. We recommended a target of a maximum 48-hour wait for patients who wanted to access sexual health services. Confronted by the compelling evidence that we heard from consultants working single-handedly it large areas, and from those working in clinics that reset able accident and emergency units or, as they put it, war zones, we also recommended that the Government urgently review staffing levels and increase capacity to make that target feasible. We asked trusts to give priority to improving the material conditions of clinics such as the one that we saw in Bristol, so that the most basic standards of dignity, confidentiality and hygiene could be maintained.
336WH
In their response to the report, the Government agreed that additional investment was needed to reduce waiting times and improve capacity in sexual health services, and pledged an extra £5 million to GUM services over and above the funds allocated to implementation of the strategy. The Government also accepted our recommendation of a 48-hour waiting time in GUM. That is perhaps the single most important step taken in response to our report, and I very much welcome it. We are convinced that implementation of the maximum waiting time will go some way towards limiting the public health consequences of sexually transmitted infection, and that it will vastly improve patients' experience of the service.
The Government's response on capacity did not meet our expectations, although we welcome the additional resources that have been invested in modernising the NHS estate as a whole, in particular the extra funds to deal with capacity issues. We are not convinced that the 55 additional trained specialists available in the current year will be enough to meet the expected demand. Genito-urinary services have been marginalised in the past and, without targeted funding for specialist posts as well as training places, capacity will remain a problem.
We took much evidence on screening and testing for chlamydia. Given that screening for chlamydia is important because it is asymptomatic in the majority of cases, we were shocked to find that the most widely used test for chlamydia is one that produces false negative results in an estimated 30 per cent. of women and 46 per cent. of men. We urged the immediate abandonment of the test. The results of screening pilots using a more sophisticated test were so worrying that we recommended the immediate introduction of a national chlamydia screening programme.
In response, the Government undertook to address the use of the sub-optimal test for chlamydia as a matter of priority. We were relieved to have the Government's acknowledgment of the necessity for rapid implementation of a national screening programme. We were also pleased to hear that £8 million, which includes a new allocation of £5 million, will be invested this financial year to enable laboratories to switch to the preferred molecular amplification test, and that the chief medical officer has written to all primary care trust chief executives to underline concerns about the use of the sub-optimal test. However, I am aware of the Minister's announcement today, and although we welcome the Government's commitment to extend the pilot screening programme to more areas, we hope that that phased introduction of the screening programme will not delay action to halt the increasing prevalence of chlamydia.
During our inquiry, we reported evidence of new trends in the transmission of HIV and of the spiralling cost of treatment. As in other areas of GUM, service providers were overstretched in their attempts to meet increasing demand for counselling, testing and treatment. We were concerned that treatment costs would continue to deplete the resources needed by clinical and support services for sexual health. We also placed on the record of our report the concerns of clinicians and other service providers that the transition to PCT-led commissioning, as well as the end of ring-fenced funding, might endanger vital prevention, health promotion and evidence-gathering work undertaken in the community and voluntary sector.

337WH
We welcome the additional £400,000 from the Government for targeted HIV health promotion and the news that the Government regard studies on the prevention of HIV and other STIs as a research priority. Without the availability of sound advice on health promotion and prevention of STIs, much of the money invested in diagnosing and treating infection will be wasted. The publication of recommended standards for the treatment of HIV, based on the model used by the national service frameworks, is a significant development. However, that does not fully answer the worries summed up by a clinician who told us that he and his colleagues found it difficult to prescribe appropriate treatments for their patients
"without a stamp on the front saying that this is what must be supported"—
a stamp such as that relating to NSF or National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidance.
While we acknowledge the clear progress achieved through the Government's teenage pregnancy strategy, we heard evidence that health and education services are still failing young people, and young men in particular. Our young witnesses confirmed our suspicions that the education system in this country persistently delivers too little, too late, often placing a mistaken emphasis on sex at the expense of a wider discussion of self-awareness and relationships. To that end, we urged the Government to incorporate sex and relationships education into the national curriculum and to ensure that it is delivered by appropriately trained teachers. Having seen evidence of the success of the specialist advice facilities both in Sweden and at the Tic Tac centre in Paignton, we also recommended that the Government should examine them as a way in which to improve services for young people.
The Government's response to those aspects of our report has not allayed our concerns. We were pleased to hear that clinics and GP practices have been audited against teenage pregnancy guidance to identify gaps in service provision, but we remain concerned about the standard of SRE that is delivered in schools throughout the country. Although we welcome the news that the quality of SRE will be monitored and that Ofsted will inspect personal, social and health education, including SRE, in secondary schools later this year, we are disappointed by the negative response to our recommendation that sex and relationships education—or relationships and sex education, as we felt it would be more appropriately termed, because our members felt that it was helpful to have a relationship before indulging in sex—be made a compulsory part of the national curriculum. It remains our strong conviction that dedicated SRE teachers should be appointed. As one young witness told us:
"We have English teachers to teach English, but we do not have sex education teachers to teach sex education…so it is really not doing the job properly to have an English or geography teacher teaching sex education."
We concur with that obvious point.
The evidence that we heard during our inquiry pointed to persistent deprioritisation of contraceptive services. Witnesses told us that contraception seemed to have disappeared from the Government's plans to tackle poor sexual health and that it was
"progressively becoming the "poor cousin' in terms of health care provision".
338WH
Our report reflected the belief that that imbalance should be rectified, and that family planning services should form part of an integrated and comprehensive sexual health service that offered advice on STI prevention and health promotion, as well as on contraception. We welcome the news that the Government will provide a small boost of £1 million to contraceptive services and that they plan to gather evidence on disinvestment in services at PCT level, but we had hoped to see a firmer commitment to action than merely the publication of guidance on commissioning to PCTs and "consideration" of a performance indicator for contraception services to be included in PCTs' star ratings.
We also recommended that, within the current legal framework, practical steps should be taken to improve access to safe, early abortions on the NHS for those who met the legal criteria. We felt that the national standard of a three-week maximum waiting time from the date of referral for an abortion was too long. The Government agreed with the Committee that in "most" circumstances three weeks was too long to wait. However, they argued that because many PCTs were not meeting the three-week target, it should not be reduced further. They also rejected our recommendation that a national telephone helpline to facilitate self-referral should be considered. However, we take on board the Government's commitment to improve services relating to abortion and their pledge to build on the progress achieved through the teenage pregnancy strategy on preventing unintended pregnancies, which, as the strategy stated, represent one of the consequences of poor sexual health.
Our report concluded that the crisis in sexual health had arisen from a range of factors that cut across all areas of our inquiry. We felt that NHS organisations had failed to deal with sexual ill health as a public health problem and that it had been neglected because of a lack of political leadership and pressure to keep it on the agenda. That lack of central direction, compounded by historical underfunding, marginalised sexual health compared with other areas that received priority because they had NSF status or Government targets attached to them. We welcome the Government's acknowledgement of our assessment of the grave situation and we are encouraged by Ministers' statements that they will take every opportunity to underline the importance of sexual health. However, we also expect to see evidence of other steps taken at the highest level to ensure that sexual health is regarded as a key priority.
We welcome the prospect of a new indicator for sexual health in PCT star ratings and the development of standards along the lines of those adopted for treatment of HIV/AIDS in ether areas of sexual health. We hope that guidance measures such as the commissioning toolkit will be adopted at PCT level. However, we concluded that a dedicated national service framework was the best way to ensure that commissioners and trusts allocate appropriate resources and support to patients and health professionals. The Government rejected that recommendation, along with our request that the planning and priorities framework be adapted to include sexual health. We remain concerned about commissioning arrangements for sexual health. We also have reservations about the level

339WH
of training and support currently offered to GPs to enable them to deliver sexual health services to a high standard. We believe that the primary care sector has the potential effectively to deliver locally commissioned and managed sexual health services, but we are not yet convinced that the mechanisms to support delivery are in place.
The Government tell us that their "clear message" to PCTs is that they are expected to address issues around waiting times and to make appropriate investments in the service. Our clear message is that we expect the Government, in conjunction with SHAs, to ensure that such investment is made and sustained to prevent further escalation of the crisis in public health. We also expect the Government to work not only towards better standards of physical health, but towards a healthier culture in which individuals are aware of their personal responsibility to make choices that will protect them and others from poor sexual health.
3.5 pm
Mr. David Amess: Sex has not suddenly been invented or discovered, but one would think that it had, given the way in which some parts of the media seem to be obsessed with it at the moment. In addition, sex has been entirely trivialised, which I shall say more about later.
I concur with almost everything said by the Chairman of the Health Committee, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). I congratulate the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) in particular, as I recall that it was her idea that we embark on this investigation. I shall not enlarge on this point, but shall say simply that the hon. Lady excelled herself in Amsterdam, and we were all the better for that.
I echo the tribute paid by the Chairman to our expert advisers, who were far more knowledgeable about the subject than we were. I understand that Professor Adler, who attended a seminar to which members of the Committee were invited, was reported as saying that MPs said:
"We never knew it was like this. We've never had a letter from a patient complaining about STIs",
to which the obvious response is, "Well, you wouldn't, would you?"
A year later, we held our inquiry, which lasted seven months. MPs were eager to reveal just how much they had learned. We said in our report:
"We have been appalled by the crisis in sexual health we have heard about and witnessed during our inquiry. We do not use the word 'crisis' lightly but in this case it is appropriate. This is a major public health issue and the problems identified in this Report must be addressed immediately."
As our Chairman said, our report described waiting lists of two months in Manchester and absolutely appalling services in Bristol. We visited a condemned portakabin with fleas in the carpet from which, apparently, 400 people were being turned away each week. A week after our visit, I was told that that facility was closed down when rats were discovered in the area. The hon. Member for Romsey was right to suggest that the Health Committee should embark on the inquiry. There can be no argument about that.
340WH
The report states that the sexual health of our nation is not at all good. How have the Government reacted to that fact? They have produced a wonderful strategy, on which I shall comment in some detail. I wonder, however, whether the strategy is simply a reaction to the crisis, or whether it offers a failsafe solution on which we will all be able to work. I have my doubts. Even today, a headline in the Evening Standard reads, "Sex disease 'timebomb'" Everyone is more than aware of the seriousness of the situation.
I said that sex had been trivialised, and it has been. All the taboos have been broken down and we talk freely about sex. Everyone talks about sex—we are obsessed with it—but what has all that achieved? Every time one turns on the television, one finds that there is no 9 pm watershed and that sex is depicted on every channel. It is extraordinary what I see being shown on some digital channels, before quickly moving on to the next one. Sex is everywhere—even the lyrics of some music contain sexual references. We can dismiss all that as irrelevant, but I do not think that it is irrelevant; it is germane to the mess in which we find ourselves. The media, just as they have changed the mother of all Parliaments, have changed the sexual behaviour of the country.
Paragraph 1 of the report states:
"No area of public health in England has suffered a more dramatic and widespread decline in recent years than sexual health."
The statistics that I obtained from the House of Commons Library show that the number of people contracting sexually transmitted diseases has increased dramatically: new episodes of chlamydia have increased from 32,000 to 67,000; of gonorrhoea from 11,000 to 22,000; and of syphilis from 116 to 696. Those are shocking facts. The rising trend in the number of sexually transmitted infections does not look as if it will even slow down, and it certainly does not look as if it will be reversed. The situation is very worrying, so the Government were right to produce their strategy in 2001.
The Chairman of the Committee touched on the issue of sex education, which is very important. Not every human being is comfortable talking publicly, or even privately, about sex. The sex education of young people, and children in particular, is a personal matter. For my part, I am nervous and cautious about sex education at a young age. One of the tragedies of today's society is that the age of innocence is decreasing all the time. Our reaction to that sad development is to say that because very young children know all about it, we must prepare them for what lies ahead and make them wary of trusting others. I understand all that, but let there be no doubt: in the past two or three years there have been dreadful national cases of things going terribly wrong after people have been trusted with the care of children and young people. That is the nature of humanity and there is a limit to how we can control, conduct and monitor the way in which such knowledge is imparted.
I am nervous about the issue and I do not have an easy answer. However, I feel strongly that it is not for any one of us to lay down the law to parents. Parents have a huge responsibility when they bring children into the world. Decisions about sex education must be theirs and theirs alone. I understand entirely the difficulties if little Johnny is withdrawn from a sex education class: it can

341WH
be embarrassing and his life may be made hell in school break. Nevertheless, the issue is important and sensitive for parents.
Mr. Hinchliffe: I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. I do not always agree with him, but I share some of his concerns. However, does he recall that during the inquiry we were told and given some fairly strong evidence to show that one in 10 girls knows nothing about menstruation when she starts her periods? That is unacceptable in this day and age, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares my view. If the parents do not go along with his suggestion that it is their duty to deal with this issue—many parents still do nothing about it—who is responsible? Who should deal with that worrying situation?
Mr. Amess: The hon. Gentleman has touched on an excellent point. Many of us have children and this is not a matter that I want to personalise. However, on the specific issue that he mentioned, I would very much hope that if there was a mother and a father, the mother would take the responsibility of preparing her daughter.
Mr. Hinchliffe: What if they don't?
Mr. Amess: The hon. Gentleman challenges me to say what would happen if there was no lady to share information with the child. I understand his point—someone must take responsibility. If there was no mother, the task would, I hope, fall to someone who had responsibility for caring for the child.
Dr. Tonge: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's sensitivity, but menstruation in girls is part of human reproduction. Should we not simply learn about it? Why is human reproduction divided from the rest of education? No one is embarrassed about teaching us how the heart works or how our eyes focus. Why should we not teach children how the reproductive system works and about the events around that?
Mr. Amess: The hon. Lady is entitled to her view, and some of her colleagues may share it, but not everyone does. There is nothing wrong with what she describes, but it is down to the individual, not to Members of Parliament, to decide what to teach their children.
John Austin: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree with the Chairman of the Committee that children have a right to know? Parents should not be entitled to deny them that knowledge. That was certainly what we were told by the young people who gave evidence to us.
Mr. Amess: I say again that it is for the parents or the individuals responsible for the child to make the decision. I hope that they would do what the hon. Member for Wakefield said and prepare their children.
John Austin: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that many parents are themselves deficient in the knowledge that they need to impart to their children? Many have problems with their own relationships and many have hang-ups about sex, so they are not necessarily the best people to communicate the necessary information to their children.
Mr. Amess: I say to the hon. Gentleman that it is not for Members of Parliament to patronise other human beings—parents—by saying that we know best, that they are ignorant or daft, and that we have all the answers. We should listen to everyone.
I say again that deciding what to tell children is a personal matter. I would be totally against legislation that made telling a child about menstruation an absolute duty. Not every human being is the same, and such an approach would be wrong and totally undemocratic. We should be not too prescriptive in such matters, but a little more sensitive to individuals' feelings.
Joan Ruddock: I think that the hon. Gentleman fails to hear the points that colleagues are making. Even if we totally agreed that responsibility should lie with the female adult who had care of the child, we know from experience and from statistics that some parents will not and, indeed, cannot accept and execute the responsibility to pass on such information. When that happens, the consequences for the child, as the report shows, can be really dreadful. I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider whether in this respect society should take responsibility when parental responsibility is not exercised.
Mr. Amess: I am listening—I am just not agreeing. I say to the hon. Lady that none of the three or four hon. Members who have intervened on me has come up with an acceptable solution. They have raised a point, and I agree with them, but they are have not come up with an acceptable solution to the problem of how to impart information to individuals. Their solution is that children should know everything very early on—I think that the age of six or eight was mentioned.
Dr. Tonge indicated dissent.
Sandra Gidley indicated dissent.
Mr. Amess: Hon. Members might grimace, but the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) said that it is a mere matter of biology and should be taught in schools. I disagree. I am listening and I understand the issues, but I do not agree with the views that hon. Members have expressed.
The way in which sexual health is bandied about on television is unfortunate. I do not mind admitting that although I used to like "Coronation Street" a great deal, I am not up to speed with the present plot. However, I am advised that in the modern show young people are depicted as having sex freely. There is a character called Sarah Louise who is 16; she already has one child, and another by a different father is on the way. Some people might ask, "What does it matter?"
Mr. Simon Burns: As my hon. Friend has not seen the programme recently, perhaps I can help by explaining that Sarah Louise is in a stable, loving relationship with the father-to-be of her second child.
Mr. Amess: I am very pleased to hear that. However, I am uncomfortable with the message that is being sent.
Dr. Tonge: Would the hon. Gentleman be more comfortable with the depiction of sex on television which—I deplore just as much as he does, and if I get the chance I shall tell him why—if the characters were shown to use condoms properly before having sexual intercourse, just to get the proper message over?
Mr. Amess: I am not sure about that, but some of the story lines are increasingly ridiculous. One has only to look at "EastEnders" to see that it is all happening. People might laugh, but such programmes have an impact on the way in which people behave. The wrong message is being sent, and I have to say to my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) that it is not cool for a sixteen-year-old to behave in the way that Sarah Louise does, although I am happy that she is now in a loving relationship.
The report concluded that the crisis in the sexual health of the United Kingdom arises from
"A failure of local NHS organisations to recognise and deal with this major public health problem… A lack of political pressure and leadership over many years… The absence of a patient voice… A lack of resources… A lack of central direction to suggest that this is a key priority…An absence of performance management."
The Government are very keen on targets—an enthusiasm that I do not share—and seem to think that they are the answer to anything and everything. Their national strategy for sexual health and HIV is divided into four broad themes: better prevention, better services, better commissioning and supporting change. The themes relating to better provision and better services seize on the words "targeted" and "targets", but targets are not the answer to such difficult problems. Problems can be solved only by sound policies.
The strategy includes four targets. They are, first,
"To reduce by 25 per cent. the number of newly acquired HIV infections and gonorrhoea infections by 2007";
secondly,
"By the end of 2004, all GUM clinic attendees should be offered an HIV test on their first screening for sexually transmitted infections (and subsequently according to risk) with a view to"
taking the matter further; thirdly,
"By the end of 2003 all homosexual and bisexual men attending GUM clinics should be offered hepatitis B immunisation at their first visit;"
and, finally,
"From 2005, commissioners should ensure that women who meet the legal requirements have access to an abortion within 3 weeks of the first appointment with the GP or other referring doctor."
Those targets can be implemented only when the Government provide a coherent way forward. Simply stating that there is to be a 25 per cent. reduction in the number of newly acquired HIV and gonorrhoea infections by 2007 is absolutely ridiculous. Who said that that will happen? How will it happen? Yet there is the statement that it will happen, as though that were an answer to the serious situation in which we find ourselves.
Recommendations 6 and 7 of the report are crucial. I feel very strongly about recommendation 6, which is:
"Although we support the Government's drive to improve sexual health services via the Strategy, without wholesale advances in sexual health provision these targets will be tokenistic."
344WH
I shall not dwell on recommendation 7, which deals with abortion. I hope that in most circumstances, if not all, abortion can be avoided, and that given the marvellous education that we now have, no one will ever have to have one in future.
I agree with the hon. Members who intervened that better education is essential, but we badly need to do something—perhaps through a Department other than the Department of Health—about how sex in general is depicted. It is being trivialised and that damages the health of the nation. The sooner we tackle that problem, the better. Despite that, the Health Committee has, as ever, produced a wonderful and valuable report.
3.27 pm
Ms Julia Drown: I agree with the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) that the report is important and worth while, and I congratulate the Government on their largely positive response.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned targets, about which there are lessons from the inquiry that we should learn in respect of other parts of the health service. Many people in and around the health service would probably say that there were too many targets, but when we asked people coming before the Committee what they wanted, the first thing for which they asked was often Government targets. They did so partly because they know the culture and know that that approach will help them in negotiation. However, I think that such people find it genuinely helpful when the Government set out nationally something that they would like for their service and on which they can work at a local level. Target bashing should be restrained slightly, because practitioners seem to welcome targets. That point has come through in both our inquiry and others, which has surprised me.
I wanted the Committee to call our report "It's not sexy", because I was struck by the extent to which the inquiry revealed deep failings in the system—in trust, in health authorities and in government—that have allowed a service that affects public health across the board to reach such a state. Decision makers at those levels have obviously all failed in their duty to protect public health. The situation in Swindon is just the same as that in other areas. Since 1998, there has been a 50 per cent. increase in the number of new patients attending the STI clinic, which is higher than the national rate, and there has been an exponential rise in the number with STIs, which is a concern. In subsequent years, waiting times have increased from two to four days, which is a reasonable time scale, to up to three or four weeks, which is too long for someone with serious concerns.
My area is one of the many places across the country that have only one full-time consultant. Our consultant is supposed to spend one day a week at the clinic in Oxford, is the clinical lead for Chippenham and elsewhere and also tries to help at other clinics. For example, when the consultant at Bath had to be away for a few months, our consultant tried to help out with cover. To do all that while dealing with the Swindon clinic as well is impossible. One can try to get locum consultants, but it is almost impossible to do so. When our consultant was ill recently, the service was really dodgy. That shows how vulnerable such services are in Swindon, as I am sure they are throughout the country.

345WH
In the light of the vulnerability of the service, we welcome the Government response and the fact that the Department of Health has given Swindon £30,000 to pump-prime the initiatives that have been set up. However, bearing in mind the wider pressures on the health service in the local trust and in the Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire strategic health authority, that figure seems small in comparison with the real needs. I congratulate those working in the sexual health services in Swindon on their commitment to those services and on raising their concerns professionally and responsibly. I am pleased that they, along with the PCT, have produced a three-year expansion plan to deal with the massive increase in work load.
Joan Ruddock: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the case of my constituency, where the opposite is true? Under what was the health authority and is now the primary care trust in Lewisham, the issue has been a priority for a long time because of the enormous explosion of sexually transmitted diseases and complications in the area, and because of our vulnerable population. Where sexual health services are prioritised, a huge distortion is produced in the budget. There is concern that funding cannot be found for other services that ought to be funded equally. There is an overall need for greater resources.
Ms Drown: I agree. Part of the reason for that explosion is that genito-urinary medicine services are rightly often open-access services and attract demand from outside the area. Given that this issue is such a public health concern and will cost the health service and people in general more in the long run, the problem must be addressed. I am pleased that the Government have gone at least part of the way in their response to the report.
In Swindon, we estimate that we will need an additional 14 clinics over the next three years. The £30,000 pump priming is merely a drop in the ocean with regard to the cost of creating those further 14 clinics. I am pleased that the strategy is there, but I am concerned about whether the issue will stay on the agenda both locally and nationally. Will the funding to meet such obvious needs really be available?
The Government could do one thing that would help Swindon and the other areas that are bidding. Funds are available to set up pilot services to develop GUM services and clinics. We should pick some of the hard-pressed clinics in areas such as Swindon, which has higher than average rates of teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, and fund the pilots in those areas. We need to learn from the lessons that we are given. A move from a vulnerable service with a single-handed consultant to a strong, quality service giving people the public health support that we need would be welcomed. I hope that the Government will respond positively to Swindon's request to become one of the pilot sites, as that would be good for the people of Swindon and beyond.
If we were to gain such Government support, we could have some confidence that the issues were being addressed. It is depressing to think about how we have reached this point. I would like us to see where lessons can be learned. Why has Lewisham dealt with the matter
346WH
responsibly and made a priority of it? Why have trust and health authority non-executive directors allowed it to slip by?
Jim Dowd: I can tell my hon. Friend why Lewisham has made the issue a priority. In Lewisham, as in most of south-east London, the problem has reached epidemic proportions. The decision to prioritise has largely been forced on the area; it was not a far-sighted decision taken a long time ago. Following the publication of the report, it is important that we deal with the problem across the country before it becomes an epidemic.
Ms Drown: That is exactly the point, and we should all try to learn something from it. Things should not have to reach this stage before action is taken.
I shall touch on some of the issues that the Committee highlighted in its report and which featured in the Government response. The first issue that we looked at was how the service should be expanded, if that is to happen. Should it be expanded at a general level across GP services or in the GUM clinics? Many would welcome GPs becoming more involved in sexual health services—Swindon certainly would—but there is a danger that that might not work if there is no central specialist support. For example, GPs cannot be more involved in tracing partners if they do not have proper communication with the partner-tracing system. We must ensure that the infra structure is adequate, so GUM clinics have to be the priority. We cannot immediately train every GP to have specialist GUM knowledge without backing from the specialist clinics. The first priority must be at specialist clinic level, otherwise the training needs will be enormous.
I was concerned by some of the evidence that the Family Planning Association gave to the Committee. It made me look into the issues surrounding unwanted pregnancy, which is particularly relevant in Swindon because we have more teenage mums than elsewhere. I am pleased that, among the young people who gave evidence to the Committee, there were a couple of teenage mums from Swindon. They were not naturally assertive and were the last people whom one might expect to see addressing a House of Commons Committee, but they got their points across. In particular, they said that relationship and sex education in schools is not good enough. They said that they had found electronic babies useful and thought that if they had had them earlier, they could have helped them and others, and might have helped them to delay the decision to have their families.
I share hon. Members' concerns that the Committee's findings were written up like a diary piece rather than a write-up of the real issue, which is that without better relationship and sex education, people's lives will continue to be fundamentally changed. We should be doing something about that. When people tell me about the good and innovative work that is being done in Swindon to prevent teenage pregnancy, I am concerned to hear how frustrating it is to try to start new projects. In Swindon, we have a good project working with young dads, which people want to expand more widely in Wiltshire, but the task of getting the money for it has become a huge mountain to overcome—people cannot

347WH
do it. We need quicker methods of getting funding to people so that we can build on the good practice in those projects. That does not happen at the moment.
We are also concerned about child protection issues. We know that teenage mums are often vulnerable and that people who abuse children or even adults are good at picking on vulnerable people. That is why those working with teenage pregnancy need to have particular training in child protection issues, so that they can pick up on any warning signs of people floating in—possibly new partners—and trying to impose themselves on teenage mums. We need to make sure that those child protection issues are addressed.
This issue is not only about relationship and sex education in schools. If we are to avoid unplanned pregnancies, we need to do more with regard to contraceptive services. I am glad that the Government have partly acknowledged that need in their response. Contraceptive services are needed at different locations, because some people will want to go to GPs and some will want to go elsewhere. We need the contraceptive services to be available.
The Committee urged Government to do more for those who end up with an unwanted pregnancy because their contraception failed or for another reason. I have never met anyone who wanted to have an abortion. It is unpleasant even at an early stage, and it is painful and involves huge emotions. It is unpleasant to have to think about abortion, and people almost always treat it as the worst of two options. We should therefore not be so nervous about speaking about it.
I know that Committee members were nervous about making a recommendation, but we did so. For example, we said that we should not be so restrictive about where terminations take place. At the moment, they have to be carried out in licensed premises, so they tend to happen only in hospitals, but it would be better if more early medical abortions were made available in community clinics. I welcome the Government's recognition of that point, and I know that some pilot sites will be set up. Will the Minister say how quickly we could get a response on those pilot schemes and how soon the project could be rolled out nationwide? It would certainly give us more flexibility.
Some people may be worried that such an approach will suddenly make abortion easier and that more abortions will be wanted, but I doubt whether that will happen. Instead, many women will avoid the huge trauma that results from terminations being delayed. Women have been having terminations for centuries; if they are not available, safe and easy, those women will go to the back streets, where they will be dangerous. We should be realistic. We should ensure that counselling is available and that women are certain of their decision, but afterwards we should make the process as easy as possible, because terminations are still painful and traumatic.
I urge the Government to decide on the pilots as quickly as possible. We could then have a community setting for early abortions, and nurses could become more involved. Only then shall we be able to get the services quickly to the women who need them.
348WH
I want to talk briefly about chlamydia—a problem that greatly exercised the Committee. The Chairman rightly pointed out the Committee's concern about the test, and I am glad that the Government recognise that a better test is needed. Indeed, I am pleased to say that the Government have gone further than the Committee. I tried to get the Committee to agree that we should suggest a pee-in-the-pot day, and that rather than screening people in one clinic or another, we should try to wipe out chlamydia just as we wiped out polio. I think that we should try to reach all the young people in an area by getting pharmacists and everyone else on board, although the work load for laboratory staff would be huge. If the approach was taken a region at a time, we would eventually spread the testing across the country, and the laboratory staff would know that if they could get on top of chlamydia, it would reduce their work load in the long run.
The Committee was reticent and said, "No Julia; that is too dramatic. We can't talk about the pee in a pot." However, I am delighted that the Government said that pee-in-the-pot tests had already been done in Cornwall—well done Cornwall—and that if they were successful, there would be more tests nationally. It can be done with a good fun message. Getting rid of chlamydia from a major part of the population would prevent infertility problems for women, save the NHS money and save people a lot of trauma.
In conclusion, the Committee has produced a very good report. It took the Committee ages to get to the end of the process, but it was worth while and we have contributed to the Government's decision to take some really good steps. I urge them to do more, particularly to ensure that we have the funding to deliver locally. In particular, I hope that the needs of Swindon will be addressed and that we will be selected as a pilot site for developing GUM services. I know that that will make a big difference to public health in Swindon.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: Before I call the next speaker, I ask those who wish to contribute to make their remarks succinct, as I want to give the Minister full opportunity to reply to this important debate. I hope that Members will take that into account.
3.44 pm
Sandra Gidley: As a member of the Committee, I take this opportunity to thank the advisers, Clerks and Committee members for making this inquiry so good natured. Inquiries often become politically bogged down, as on foundation hospitals, and Members can take entrenched political positions, which means that there is not always enough give and take. As we have heard, people hold deeply personal views on sexual health, but even though not everyone agreed with some of the views that were expressed in Committee, there was a lot of respect and give and take.
I was delighted when the Committee decided to undertake its investigation into a neglected subject on which an extremely dedicated group of people are working—and they are doing so very much against the odds. No one wants to talk about the problem. Unusually, this was the first inquiry that I can remember where the panel of officials was 100 per cent. female.
So much made me angry as we were undertaking the inquiry and so much still does that the challenge for me today was choosing which bits of the report to highlight.

349WH
I start by mentioning what was omitted. Some people might look at the size of the report, which is huge, and think that it could be regarded as a modern version of "Everything you wanted to know about sexual health but were afraid to ask", but that is not the case. We learned about disease states, lack of resources, the shocking and dilapidated state of some of the services, what young people think about their sex education and ways in which that education could be tackled.
The emphasis was very much on the physical, practical and obvious aspects of the problem. We scarcely touched on psycho-sexual aspects, for example, and we had a token hour on erectile dysfunction. I want to touch on the wider issues that, in many ways, we hardly referred to. The Family Planning Association highlighted some of those problems and stated in its report to the Committee:
"More recent preventative work has advocated a highly medical model, focusing largely on reducing infections."
I would not say that that was a bad thing, but the FPA believes that sexual health
"should be underpinned by a holistic ethos, which positively promotes human sexuality…as normal and life enhancing. A useful model is the Teenage Pregnancy Strategy, which takes an integrated approach to the contributing factors and examines the diverse range of influences surrounding young people and sex."
The FPA went on to talk in its evidence about the importance of sex and relationships education:
"Sexual health needs to be better integrated with teenage pregnancy programmes, community development projects and within education and local government to avoid services becoming isolated, and subjected to stigma and downgrading."
That theme was touched on in the evidence session, but the root cause of most of the problems is the peculiar attitude that the British seem to have about sex. It is not prudish, but schizophrenic. On the one hand, there are parents who are reluctant to talk with their children about sex for fear of somehow ruining their innocence, but on the other hand, statistics show that those children are likely to have a TV that they use unsupervised in their room.
That issue has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members. It is quite horrifying to think of some of the messages that are sent out, even on the soaps. Later at night, not long after the watershed, there are programmes that delight in showing young Brits at play abroad, displaying promiscuous behaviour. Production staff on reality TV shows fuel the bored young people with alcohol in the hope that they might get some on-screen sex. We live in a completely bizarre world. No wonder our young people are confused. That point was mentioned by our panel of young witnesses, and it is a matter of much regret that the coverage of that witness session poked fun at those witnesses. I still get quite upset about that.
Those young people also spoke eloquently about strong peer pressure and, sadly, the existence of mixed standards, which I thought had disappeared years ago—the attitude that if someone does not have sex, there is something wrong with them, but that if a girl has sex, she is a bit of a slapper, to use modern parlance. There is no middle way. The young people also spoke quite a lot about alcohol and how it was often a contributory factor or made sex easier. That is the oldest excuse in the book, but I hope that when the long-awaited alcohol
350WH
strategy appears it will address some of those issues. Significant problems are associated with under-age drinking and drinking generally.
I turn now to slightly alternative themes. I will talk about erectile dysfunction, as I do not think that anyone else will. It was left to me to do all the questioning in Committee during our token session on the issue. During that session, one of the problems that was highlighted was equity of access to products that can help if a man has a problem. The report recommended that the Department review the current provision, but the Government have refused to carry out such a review. I should remind hon. Members that male impotence preparations are currently mostly covered by the schedule 11 or selected list scheme and can be prescribed only if the patient is also suffering from a specified clinical condition such as diabetes.
Schedule 11 is part of the general medical services regulations, which are being revised as a result of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003. However, the selected list scheme does not form part of the new GMS regulations. Although the Government have assured us that there will be no additions, deletions or amendments to the medicines listed in that scheme, the provisions for it are to be covered by a separate set of regulations. I am not sure why that is so. Concerns have been raised about the continuation of a slightly different scheme, known as the severe distress provision, whereby a GP can refer a patient to a consultant urologist if he is suffering from unreasonable severe distress. If the consultant agrees that prescribing is appropriate, the patient can receive his medication on the NHS. Can the Minister reassure us that that scheme will continue, and that people who are currently accessing medication for that reason will continue to be able to do so?
I have dealt with British attitudes to sex—including talking about it—and I have reached one unshakeable conclusion: we are failing to prepare our young people for life. There is no point trying to educate them about the finer points of algebra or even about how their heart works if they are not equipped to deal with and negotiate sexual relationships, including learning how not to succumb to pressure and how to handle such situations, so that they can go on to have a healthy sex life when they decide to do so.
The Committee travelled to Sweden, where I was struck by the sexual health clinics for under-25s. The clinics were bright, clean and airy, and they welcomed both sexes and employed a range of staff, including nurses, doctors and social workers, who had a holistic approach to the subject and talked to the young people who accessed services. If the staff thought that a girl was coming in for the pill and was being promiscuous, they would encourage her to speak to a social worker or psychologist, because in their view such behaviour indicated some other problem. That is very grown up. What struck me was that a visit to the clinic formed part of the curriculum. Every child of a certain age was shown their local youth sexual health clinic and nobody batted an eyelid. If we tried to introduce something similar in this country, the tabloid press would have a field day. They would probably say that we were encouraging young people to have sex and so on. In fact, young people are having sex anyway, and we must ensure that if they are doing so, they are properly equipped to do so safely and healthily.

351WH
The nearest thing to those centres in this country is the excellent Tic Tac project at Paignton, which is an information and support centre based on a school premises. It is not just about sex, but about all aspects of social care. Similar projects should be encouraged in schools around the country. The project is responsible and has been well received by parents, and it seemed to be achieving its purpose of reducing the teenage pregnancy rate.
It was evident that the approach of Sweden and the Netherlands to sex education was heavily focused on the relationships aspect. Our system is based on the form teacher, who may or may not have received some training in sex education, teaching the subject. It always used to be the geography teacher who got the most flak. No account is made of how comfortable teachers are with educating children in such sensitive subjects. Not everybody can do it; people have to be comfortable with the subject and with themselves before approaching it in a realistic way with young people. The level of ignorance was described very adequately by our young witnesses, who were damning about the education that they had received. There is a particular problem with targeting education at young men. Although I welcome some of the attempts to tackle that problem, they do not seem to have gone far.
We have produced generations of sexual ignoramuses. Those on the Select Committee will probably be able to name the 12 methods of contraception that I have written down, although I looked at that number again before this debate, and found that there were actually 13 methods. Not many people can name them all, and I tested the matter out at the Liberal Democrat conference. We had a debate on sex education, and I challenged the audience to name 12 methods of contraception. Three people put their hands up; all of them were MPs and two were medically qualified, although we are not sure about my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). That evening, I could not move around the conference or the fringe events for people stopping me saying, "We've got up to nine. Can you tell us what the others are?" It was a good opportunity to provide public education, particularly as it was the last night of conference.
I wholeheartedly support one of the Select Committee's key recommendations: SRE in schools should become a core part of the national curriculum. I firmly believe that we have a moral duty to make such education compulsory from key stage 2, although I know that not everyone agrees. These days, a large majority of girls start menstruating before they leave primary school. Years ago, there was no provision for the few who started their periods before they started secondary school. Now, we see the bins and the machines in the girls' toilets at junior school. It is a dereliction of duty not to educate young girls about what is happening to their bodies.
Parents are vital, but when it comes to sex education, we are often given the alternative of parents or schools. We must not take an either/or approach, but consider ways in which parents can become more relaxed and happier about what is happening in school. They could be involved in developing ideas that encourage children
352WH
to talk to their parents, because the younger children are when that happens, the easier it is. If parents wait until they have an embarrassed 14-year-old boy on their hands, they will not have a chance of raising the subject and being open and honest with him.
I shall finish by concentrating on the Government's response. Our report was so powerful that I thought that things could change only for the better. Perhaps I was naïve. I do not see enough evidence that the Government are taking the problem more seriously. For example, they talk about GU services becoming a part of the indicators for star ratings. However, they also say that the local development plans will identify demand for additional GU consultants. The Family Planning Association has surveyed the strategic health authorities and has taken a look at local delivery plans. From the plans of 24 SHAs came the following results: HIV was mentioned in just seven plans; sexual health was mentioned, but only briefly, in 10, with no service improvement or investment targets identified; STIs were mentioned in just two plans; teenage pregnancy was mentioned in 15, but that might feature more heavily because it is an indicator for primary care trusts; and abortion and contraception services were not mentioned at all.
The only indicator that is used for PCTs takes the percentage of NHS-funded abortions into account, and it was mentioned in the Government's response. That is regarded as a good indicator of access to services. After all that we have heard today, would not a better indicator be whether people are able to see a GU specialist or access a walk-in clinic within 48 hours? That would do far more than a perverse indicator about abortion to tackle the wide-ranging problems that we have identified.
I hope that the Minister will convince me otherwise, but I get the impression that the Government are just talking the talk. Who are they are talking to? Clearly, SHAs have not heard the message. It is not good enough to put the blame on the PCTs, using the same old mantra that the money is there and it is up to them to ensure that there is adequate investment in services. Although we do not like it, we all know that, rightly or wrongly, PCTs prioritise according to what the Government have identified as targets. There do not appear to be any such targets here. I am usually the last person to ask for a target, but where there appears to be no interest something must happen to generate an improvement. It is the hanging offences—"If you do not do this, you will not get your three stars"—that get the resources.
The report expressed a certain amount of disappointment that the HIV ring-fencing had gone, although there have been reassurances that the money is still there. The all-party group on AIDS has identified something. There is a pattern to the dispersal of asylum seekers, some of whom are likely to be HIV-positive. They are often dispersed to places where there is no historic record and expertise in dealing with HIV/AIDS, and they might not be dispersed to the main centres of population that have traditionally had large clinics and high throughputs. If the Minister can say what is being done to ensure that adequate resources are available in the areas to which such people are being dispersed, that will go some way to reassure the Committee that the system will not collapse.

353WH
Many answers refer to something called the sexual health commissioning toolkit, which gives advice and provides ideas on all manner of worthy topics. However, there is a problem with any sort of toolkit. To draw an analogy with a toolbox for a car, there will be those who tinker all weekend so that everything is finely tuned and hunky-dory, and there will be others who use it only as a last resort. Sadly, an excellent piece of work has probably not been utilised as much as it might have been.
It appears that nobody is providing leadership. We have heard about the lack of the patients' voice. Patients are not making demands or highlighting problems—with the exception, perhaps, of HIV services, for which there is a particular lobby group. The administrators are not providing a lead to ensure that priority is given. As for the politicians, the Health Committee has made a stand, but one of the worst things that could happen would be to move on to something else and forget all about this.
On chlamydia testing, apart from the welcome news about the pee-in-the-pot pilot, the Government seem to be happy to trundle out the implementation of the screening pilots by 2008. By that time, a lot of women will have contracted chlamydia, and some of them may have reached the stage where they are infertile because of it. Looking ahead to when they want to have children, they are now rightly allowed to have in vitro fertilisation, but if the Government put a few more resources into dealing with the chlamydia problem they will not have to spend so much in the long term on dealing with infertility. We must put the horse before the cart, rather than the cart before the horse. This is a classic example of lying back and not thinking of England, and there are many more examples of this head-in-the-sand approach.
There were many parts of the report that individual members wanted to beef up. However, we were all conscious that if we went overboard on abortion services or hyped up the pee-in-the-pot day, as the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) mentioned, there would be only one story. We wanted the media to focus on every aspect, and I think that we achieved that.
The worst thing that we can now do is let this report gather dust and forget about it. We must carry on trying to press for the adoption of some of the Committee's recommendations and monitoring the Government's progress on their commitments.
4.4 pm
Jim Dowd: In view of your exhortation to be brief, Sir Nicholas, I shall speak only for a couple of minutes. Much of what I wanted to say has already been said, and I shall cut the repetition to a minimum except where I want to offer strong support to what other Members—those who are present and Committee members—have said.
I wish to join members of the Committee in congratulating our advisers and support staff on producing the document. Clearly, it was our magnum opus for the previous Session. It seems so long ago now that, given the glacial pace at which business moves in the House, its impact tends to be lost and we have to try to remember furiously what we were dealing with at the time. However, the import of much of what we learned
354WH
during the inquiry both in the United Kingdom and wider afield has certainly not left me. I am a south-east London MP, as I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown), and the issue is of great importance and urgency for us in my part of London. One observation in the report is that sexual health and dysfunction disproportionately affect disadvantaged communities, and south-east London is one of the most disadvantaged communities in the country.
I too welcome the Government's moves in response to the 48-hour target and the revisions to chlamydiatesting suggestions that were set out in the report. To some degree, they were the more simple suggestions that we set out. I wish briefly to refer to the national service framework. I understand the Government's reluctance in the matter and agree that if everything is important, nothing is important. Decisions have to be made and, throughout the House, hon. Members say almost every day that the issue they want to draw attention to is the most important that is confronting us and that it must be given priority.
The reason I ask the Minister and Department to reflect further on matters is that, as others have said, this is an issue where the picture is becoming worse, almost by the hour. Everyone recognises that, but it is an issue on which there is far less broad agreement about the strategy for reversing the trend. I understand that it competes with other issues. If everything achieves such a status, it diminishes the efforts that are being made elsewhere. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether the scale of the response is proportionate to the scale of the problem.
Others have mentioned the importance of early education in such matters. As I said to the Committee Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), I was most impressed by the youth clinics that we visited in Sweden because they addressed all issues relating to health and young people, including responsible diets and introducing many people to a healthy lifestyle, as well as matters concerning sexual health. They play an important role. We have suffered in this country over the years because of the way in which the problem has become compartmentalised and stigmatised.
Reference has been made to the lack of public representation to us, as Members of Parliament, about such matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin) said that he had received no letters about the subject over the past 12 years. I think that I have received one. The reason for that is not only the embarrassment and stigma associated with sexual health services in this country. They have traditionally been such Cinderella services that there is a lack of ambition for those using them and a poor level of service has become the norm; ergo if those using them receive a poor level of service, it is felt that there is nothing particularly wrong about that.
In part, the problems that we are facing—the "crisis" as the report puts is—is a product of the approach that has been adopted over several years. There is also a parallel in the area of sexual health with our current major inquiry into obesity. Part of people's attitude towards that condition is due to the notion of blame. Somehow it is thought that the condition is in part self-inflicted and therefore not as deserving of public action

355WH
and public money as cancer, heart disease or other conditions about which people feel strongly. There is an idea that those things happen to a person, who is just the victim, whereas with STIs, or obesity for that matter, the person concerned is somehow complicit in their condition.
As a reflection on poor services, I cite the clinic that we saw at the Manchester Royal infirmary, which made me think that we had been teleported to a third-world country grappling with the issue for the first time. The conditions in which the staff had to work were appalling. That was true of the décor and the whole tenor of the place. Incidentally, we managed to lose the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) in a ladies' lavatory at the Manchester Royal infirmary, but that is another story, which needs to be taken up with the Clerk, who could not count up to eight.
I want to take up some of what the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) said. I accept that we cannot take the issue out of a social context, although I do not necessarily agree with his analysis of it. I agree that we cannot see the issue aside from the climate in which it exists. One issue is the greater freedom that people have enjoyed since the 1960s. Is not sex supposed to have been invented
"Between the end of the Chatterley ban
And the Beatles' first LP"?
Sex is with us now in a way that it has not been before. In many ways that is liberating. People feel freer and more able to express themselves than at any time in the past. I prefer that to what many previous generations have had to tolerate. However, with that freedom comes a responsibility. The individual has a responsibility—I readily accept that idea—but so do the rest of us and the broader society. Where we fail, we will all pay the consequences. We will certainly all die of something some day, but let it not be ignorance.
4.12 pm
Dr. Jenny Tonge: Thank you, Sir Nicholas, for allowing me to air a few of the bees in my bonnet. Sadly, I was not on the Select Committee that conducted the investigation, but I am glad that it was done. I congratulate the Chairman and the Committee for their work and the report that they produced. However, I wonder how many more Committees, reports, targets, reviews, strategies and announcements we shall have before we take the bull by the horns and do something about the problem.
I am sorry if the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) felt that I was teasing him. I have much sympathy with what he says. I am old enough now to think that there was a rather nice time when children were innocent and people did not have sex promiscuously as they do now. However, as the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Jim Dowd) said, there was also a downside to that time. People were restricted and repressed, and if they did the wrong thing they were often accused.
Every age has its problems—sexual freedom is certainly one of ours—but there is something that I do not think that the hon. Member for Southend, West realises. As he mentioned, young people are surrounded
356WH
by television programmes showing sex every night, and advertisements that use sexual imagery for everything one can think of, such as cars, deodorants or chocolate. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman owns any shares, but if he does, has he ever been to a shareholders' meeting and complained that the products that he supports or profits from are advertised in that way? Individuals should think about that and say, "We object to that line of advertising. Why cannot we have something different?"
Children and young people are surrounded by such material, but we never see an advertisement or television programme in which a character uses a condom. We never see antidotes advertised. There is never a sexy advertisement for a condom on television. The only things that we see are those that force people into sexual activity—never the antidotes. We are guilty of encouraging that culture, by not saying anything about it.
The hon. Gentleman also said that sex is talked about everywhere. It is. It is the hot topic in any pub or club. Everywhere, people talk quite freely about sex. However, it is not talked about freely in schools, which is the problem. Children do not feel that they can talk about it freely. Again, we are sending young people double messages. They are surrounded by this thing called sex and by people engaging in sexual activity, yet they cannot talk about it or find out very much about it, except from their friends, who may be misinformed. We must therefore consider antidotes.
I am glad that someone mentioned alcohol. As the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr Hinchliffe) said, many respondents to a questionnaire on sexual contacts could not say with whom they had had sex. I suggest that that may be because of the amount of alcohol that is consumed, especially by young women. They simply cannot remember. They get drunk and have sex. Sadly, the traditional effect that alcohol has had of giving young men the droop does not seem to occur very much nowadays, so sexual activity carries on. I do not know whether they put something in the booze; it certainly does not seem to have the required effect.
I was glad that the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) and my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) said a great deal about chlamydia. The rise in the number of cases of chlamydia is horrific. Seven years ago, which is not a very long time ago, I practised medicine before I became an MP. We hardly dealt with it. It was just beginning to be talked about. Now, it is a countrywide epidemic. As my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey said, do we know how many people with chlamydia become infertile as a result, especially if they must wait two or three weeks for an appointment at their local clinic? As she also said, chlamydia blocks the fallopian tubes, and women will become infertile and need in vitro fertilisation in adult life. Has anyone costed all this? Will we really be able to afford to offer everyone who is infertile because of blocked fallopian tubes two free IVF treatments on the NHS? The cost will be colossal. For once, the Evening Standard is right to talk about a time bomb. It is a time bomb, and a very expensive one.
My main point, and the loudest-buzzing bee in my bonnet, is my frustration that so much emphasis is placed on treatment in the NHS. As a result of sexual activity, we must treat severe infections ranging from

357WH
AIDS down to thrush infections, which make people more likely to pick up the more serious infections. We must treat unwanted pregnancies and infertility, at huge expense. I read somewhere that even in 2003, 50 per cent. of pregnancies are unplanned. That is here in the UK, in 2003. The cost to the health service is enormous. The SHAs and primary care trusts must place an emphasis on these things because, when they occur, they demand urgent treatment.
Please let us remember the old adage that prevention is better than cure. Where is the public health message? What are the Government doing? If we continue to have free health care at the point of delivery, we must do something about prevention, otherwise we will run out of money. We must stop people becoming ill in the first place. A beautiful thing about this topic is that the message of safe sex, which prevents people from getting pregnant and catching infections, will cover a host of ills that prove to be so expensive for the NHS. Where are those messages?
As some hon. Members know, I have worked in international development ever since I was elected to Parliament. Anyone who travels in Africa will come across the AIDS problem by the barrel load. It is a terrible pandemic, which is raging throughout Africa. Uganda is a very poor, underdeveloped country. It has no sophisticated health service, no infrastructure and very few roads. Yet it has reduced the incidence of AIDS in leaps and bounds. It has done that by means of a strong publicity message and by having public health advertisements everywhere, including on television and radio, for those who have them. Bands of specialists, some of whom are AIDS sufferers themselves, go round schools, selling the safe-sex message.
If Uganda can do that for AIDS, we can do it in this country for all the other things—unwanted pregnancies, chlamydia and syphilis, which is horrific, although I have never seen any of the many cases that we now have. If we can only get to grips with producing a few simple publicity measures, we could tackle all those things. We have television, which is a major asset. We also have advertisement hoardings throughout the country. At the moment, there is a brilliant British Heart Foundation advert showing a cigarette stuffed with fat, which is a brilliant image of what cigarettes do to smokers. We can do the same or similar with other public health messages.
Education in schools is essential and should be compulsory. The messages should start at primary school level, be appropriate to the age of the children and be repeated every year. However, we also need a massive publicity campaign to sell public health messages. If we do not have one, the health service will run out of money. Of course, such messages can be frightening. I remember the AIDS campaign 10 years ago, which was the only one of its kind. It was Lord Fowler who pushed for it, and I understand from talking to him that there was terrific opposition in the Cabinet to having that series of advertisements on television and to spending the money—but, boy, did they make people sit up and think. Young members of my family really sat up, watched and took in the message. Sadly, it was never repeated. We must do something like that.
358WH
The key to preventive health and public health is to be entirely honest with people. We must tell them, "We don't mind you doing what you do, but if you don't do it safely, you'll become ill and, if there's not enough treatment around, you'll die." That is the message that we must get over.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Before I call the Front-Bench spokesmen, I should tell hon. Members that we are not as pushed for time as I expected and that I want the Minister to be able to rise at 5 o'clock. The spokesmen for the Liberal Democrat party and the Conservative and Unionist party can divide the remaining time between themselves, but I hope that they understand that I will call the Minister by 5 o'clock at the latest.
4.23 pm
Mrs. Patsy Calton: I thank you for your guidance on timing, Sir Nicholas. As ever, it was very clear. As you will be aware, I have been in need of such guidance from time to time.
This tremendously important debate follows on from a tremendously important report. In reading the report and the Government's response, all parties concerned will recognise that we face a crisis and that action must to be taken. I would be the first to agree that there are no quick fixes, and, in their response to a point in the report, the Government said that they did not believe that either. However, there are things that can be done and some have, indeed, already been put in train. Some measures may produce results more quickly than others.
I shall deal first with the evidence that has come forward. I know that we have heard this two, three or four times already today, but it cannot be said often enough that, according to surveys, one in 10 young people are infected with chlamydia. Yet studies show that 75 per cent. of young people in about the same age group have never heard of chlamydia. Chlamydia can result in infections, infertility and ectopic pregnancies, which are potentially life-threatening to the mother. The fact that the disease is so prevalent and that so little is known about it gives a clear indication about the procedures that need to be implemented—to try at least to ensure that it is brought to the forefront not just of our attention, but that of the public, particularly young people.
We have already heard about the 500 per cent. increase in syphilis infections, which I hope is because the figures started from a very low base. However, that increase, the doubling of gonorrhoea infections and the 6,500 diagnoses of HIV, all indicate the sorts of problem that we face. That must be put together with the information from the Committee about long waiting times and the fact that people are turned away from genito-urinary medicine clinics. Not only do we have a big problem—we have a problem about how to treat that big problem.
It is worth considering how we got to this situation. I was a science teacher in the 1980s, and I remember the impact made by the legislation that made clear that science teachers were no longer to talk about relationships during sex education. At my school, we were given written instructions not to talk about sexually transmitted infections or contraception. That

359WH
gave away an opportunity for young people to be taught daily about such things by people whom they knew, respected and trusted.
There was a gap for a while, and then personal social and health education came in. Although I agree that sex education should be taught within relationship education. I would pose this question: if young people are taught PSHE once a week, will they see a teacher qualified—or allowed, or who feels competent or whatever—to teach that subject? If they happen to be off sick or on a trip that day, they will miss that lesson. Three or four months may pass before another part of that education is offered. However, children were able to approach their science teachers, whom they saw perhaps five times a week—enough to know whether they could trust that teacher or not.
I read with interest the comments made by the young people who gave evidence to the Select Committee. I worry that the reason why young people can get through all of their secondary education and reach 16 or 17 without any sex education is because they happened to be off on the few days that it was offered, and because such education is not there as a constant, open part of general education.
Ms Drown: Does the hon. Lady agree with those working with teenage mums in Swindon, who say that the message needs to be reinforced in the spring term, just before young people leave school? They are going off into the world, such issues pose a danger and they need to be aware of them.
Mrs. Calton: I agree. One problem is that the subject has not been sufficiently returned to—it is taught once a year, and perhaps the teacher is off sick that day. PSHE lessons tend to be timetabled on the basis that the pupils who attend them are withdrawn from something else. If the teacher is not there, they go to the normal lesson and that part of the curriculum is not covered as well as it would have been if they had received regular teaching. I speak from experience of a school that was and is highly regarded. I think that it is the same for many other schools.
As well as worrying about those aspects, I am concerned about the culture that other hon. Members have described—the sort of culture in which it is all right to put page 3 nakedness into a newspaper, but in the same newspaper there will be smutty little jokes and holier-than-thou articles about what is and is not permissible. Until all of us exercise our freedom to refuse to buy newspapers that operate those double standards, that sort of nonsense will continue. It does not bode well when politicians join in with that. We have heard about the need for leadership. Leadership sometimes requires that one does not go with the crowd; politicians should stand up for what they believe in, and if that is proper education to enable young people to gain a proper understanding, they must say so. It is not sufficient to go along with the tut-tutting brigade who, nevertheless, think that it is acceptable to expose women's breasts on page 3.
Our culture makes it extremely difficult for young people. One of the bodies that has supplied me with information suggests that young people believe that
360WH
they are odd if they have not had sex by a certain age, although the reality is that most young people of the same age have not done so. They are then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) said, made to feel bad if they have had sex. We have got ourselves into the ridiculous situation in which, far from talking about sex in an honest way, we tend to talk about it in the pub and behind the bike sheds, rather than openly so that young people can obtain real, honest information of the type that they need.
The Government have focused particularly on reducing teenage pregnancy. That is a laudable aim. Undoubtedly it has influenced many young people about 8,000 pregnancies have been avoided. Stockport, within which my Cheadle constituency is located, has experienced one of the greatest reductions in teenage pregnancy, so I absolutely support that aim. However, there is the problem that more unwanted pregnancies now involve women in their 20s. We need to worry a great deal about what is causing an increase in unwanted pregnancies in that age group. What is it about our society that produces so many unwanted pregnancies? Earlier, we heard that 50 per cent. of pregnancies are unwanted. That is an appalling statistic. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that our contraceptive services are not getting the support that they need.
Dr. Tonge: I think that the term was "unplanned" rather than "unwanted". An unplanned pregnancy can turn into a wanted one when the awful truth is known.
Mrs. Calton: Forgive me. I might well have produced the wrong term—unplanned, certainly. I thank my hon. Friend. I suspect that she is correct, and I shall go back to my figures to check the terminology.
We have heard about chlamydia, and about the huge number of young people who do not know anything about the disease. The fact that 70 per cent. of women and 50 per cent. of men do not know that they are carrying the infection is a great worry. Part of the reason why people do not know about it is that it is a hidden infection. I am delighted that screening programmes are being rolled out and that the chief medical officer is recommending the new test. Will the Minister monitor the roll-out of that chlamydia screening and tell us, perhaps in a year's time, how far it has progressed? Will she tell us, perhaps also within a year, the extent to which the new test has been adopted as a result of the CMO's requests to strategic health authorities?
I have talked at some length on education and my concerns about changes in the 1980s and 1990s that were due partly to how legislation that affected sex education and relationship education, which were linked, could be followed through. There are some good initiatives, such as peer education. For instance, I have seen training that young people give in drugs education first hand, and it was first class—it worked extremely well. There is much to be learned from peer education, which should be supported. Community initiatives and outreach programmes are also important, so I was pleased to hear about the Tic Tac centre in Paignton. We have our own programme in Stockport called Central Youth, on Grand Central square. The scheme was introduced by the local authority, the health authority and others, and

361WH
has given free access and a great deal of assistance to young people. The programme has been particularly helpful for young men, who have been prepared to go to a location such as a shopping centre, rather than somewhere where they might be known.
My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park said that local development plans make no mention of HIV, sexual health or other issues. That is not necessarily an indication that those things are of a low priority, but because we have developed a target-driven culture—whatever is not a target does not get followed. We must seek a balance, but, according to a Family Planning Association survey—I thank the association for its briefing—not one local development plan from the strategic health authority mentioned abortion or contraception services, which is a real problem. I hope that the Minister will ensure that that does not happen in future.
We hear that a great deal of funding is coming in. I have read the Minister's responses to the various requests that have been made. The additional investment is welcome, but I should like some reassurance that it will end up where it should end up. Money announced for other services has not always reached where it was supposed to reach, so what tracking exercise will the Government undertake to ensure that that does not happen?
I have asked for reports on a number of issues in a year's time. It would be immensely helpful for either the Committee or Parliament to be told what has been achieved. The Minister's response is dated September 2003, so it would be good to aim for another report in a year's time in September 2004, but if that is too soon, some information by the end of the year about the report's impact would be welcome. We all recognise that there is a problem and that funding should go where it is needed, but after today it is possible that, unless Parliament asks for a report every year, everyone will forget, and we cannot afford to allow that to happen. The issue is far too important to allow it to go by the wayside, and for us to say that we have done all that we could. It is my firm belief that we could do a great deal more by ensuring that Parliament is kept regularly informed.
4.40 pm
Mr. Simon Burns: I, too, thank the Committee's advisers and staff for their help and guidance, and for their work in producing the report. I am sure that all hon. Members—I include Ministers—will agree that it makes an important, positive contribution to the debate on sexual health.
I noted with interest—but it was not unexpected—that the Committee Chairman quoted from the report at the beginning of his speech. The report stated:
"We have been appalled by the crisis in sexual health we have heard about and witnessed during our inquiry. We do not use the word 'crisis' lightly but in this case it is appropriate. This is a major public health issue and the problems identified in this report must be addressed immediately."
I wholeheartedly stand by that statement; it is probably the most important statement in the report, as it sets the scene.
We are talking about a burgeoning epidemic. At the beginning of section 3, the report shows the bald statistics of the incidence of each sexually transmitted
362WH
infection from 1996 to 2001. The latest figures, taking us up to 2002, show the sad fact that there has been no diminution in the increase in infections but an escalation out of all proportion to previous increases. Between 1996 and 2002, there was an increase in primary and secondary syphilis of 933 per cent. —a staggering and frightening figure. For gonorrhoea, the increase was 105 per cent.; for chlamydia, it was 141 per cent.; herpes showed an increase of 15 per cent.; and genital warts had increased by 17 per cent.
The report did not look into it—that makes it no less important—but other STIs are developing that do not come within the well known categories. For instance, and rather nerve-rackingly, I was talking to a colleague who had visited his local district hospital last week. He wanted to talk to hospital staff about sexual health matters, and was told some stark facts. For instance, three years ago, the main problem that the hospital had to deal with was chlamydia. One year ago, it was chlamydia and the results of date rape from spiked drinks.
Horrifyingly, this year, the hospital found that young girls, who had learned the message about not allowing themselves to get pregnant, were going out clubbing and thinking it safe to engage in oral sex with multiple partners. The trouble is that many of their partners, and they themselves, had body piercings. One result of that was an increase in the incidence of cancer on the tongue, as well as other infections, caught from the skin around the piercing. That is happening as a direct result of infections caught during sexual activity; and, according to the hospital, it has led to cancer and other STIs not found in the statistics under the conventional definitions. There must be other aspects that suggest that there is still more to this state of affairs than we can see from the already stark and horrifying figures.
The future is not at all good either. Many hon. Members have discussed in different ways the question of social attitudes and social changes. During work on the report it became clear from the statistics on the changes in social behaviour that the number of young men and women engaging in unsafe and unprotected sex is increasing.
Sandra Gidley: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman will agree about this, but he probably knows that I used to work as a pharmacist, and I frequently dispensed the morning-after pill to young girls who had been out clubbing. Often they arrived in twos and threes, which was most alarming. Does he agree that an ideal opportunity exists, which is probably being missed by health professionals and drug companies alike, to get a safe sex message across so that such incidents are not repeated?
Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. If she will forgive me, I shall come to the question of safe sex campaigns shortly.
The statistics are worrying, because those for 1990 showed that 13.6 per cent. of men had engaged in unsafe sex in the previous year. By 2000 the figure had, incredibly, increased to 15.4 per cent. The figures for women had gone from 7.1 per cent. to 10.1 per cent. That is frightening, because it suggests one of two things: either that people have learned nothing, or that they are entirely ignorant. It may be both.

363WH
I now come to the point raised by the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley). What we saw with the emergence of HIV/AIDS in the mid-1980s was a high-profile educational campaign, using television and other media outlets, written and visual. It was hard-hitting, and was criticised from the top levels of government down to certain sectors of the general public who were queasy and worried about a hard-hitting campaign. However, it went ahead and, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) said, it hit home. It made people at home in front of their televisions sit up, watch and take in the message.
The campaign was significant in leading people to understand that the nearest thing to safe sex in this country was the use of condoms. Of course, the spin-off benefit of that approach was to protect individuals—it was hoped—against not only HIV, but the entire range of STIs. That campaign lasted for a period and was not repeated in the same way. There was a view that there were other, possibly more sophisticated and successful, ways of getting the message across, through targeting in specialist magazines and other outlets. I am not convinced of the accuracy of that view.
Of course there is an important role for such targeting in advertising and conveying public messages. I do not deny that. However, in addition, a hard-hitting message is needed for the entire population, preferably—because it is the easiest way to do it—through national television as a supplement to other forms of advertising. After the initial campaign there was a noticeable decrease in the incidence of STIs. The figures then began to rise again, in the mid to late 1990s. The fact was that we had—and we certainly have now, in 2003—04—a new generation oblivious of the advertising and the public information of the late 1980s. They are unaware, or not properly aware, of the danger and the threat of STIs. There is then the problem with chlamydia: many people who are infected are unaware of that, in the same way that the latest HIV statistics suggest that there remains a significant proportion of people who are unaware that they are HIV-positive.
I pay tribute to the Government for their "sex lottery" campaign and their use of the internet to set up their "Playing safely" website. In addition, however, I urge them to re-examine the pros and cons of having a more high-profile, hard-hitting campaign that will get across to the whole country through the most obvious medium—television. That is needed so that we can bring home the message that we are not crying wolf and that this is not a game; it is a deadly serious and deeply worrying matter.
The trends are unacceptable and the Minister would accept that were deaths from cancer, flu or pneumonia to increase in the way that the incidence of STIs has increased over the past six years, there would be even more of a public outcry. Ministers and Members of Parliament—I am not blaming Ministers—would be running around far more, saying, "This is dreadful", and they would be coming up with what they believed were solutions, even if they were short-term ones, to try to lower the death rate.
My other point relates to the issues that the report highlighted about access to sexual heath services. There is a serious problem, and Governments—I use the term
364WH
in the plural—have been able to get away with a level of service that would not be tolerated for the treatment of cancer or heart disease. That is because far too many people—for a variety of reasons that have been mentioned in the debate—are shy, ashamed or embarrassed by their medical condition, and most are not prepared to campaign for improved quality of service. They are not prepared to campaign for more services and for more public attention to be focused on those services because they fear that people will judge them adversely, because they are infected by whichever medical condition they have. Over a long period—this did not start on 1 May 1997—the service has not kept pace with the demand and need because of a lack of attention, and a lack of public and individual focus.
Some hon. Members have said that during their time as MPs they had received only one letter, or not even one, about STIs suffered by individual constituents. Apart from one area, and I do not know why this should be unique to my constituency, I have not received any such letters. On a number of occasions, I have received letters from people on the subject of sexual dysfunction, mostly about their not being able to get Viagra on a NHS prescription and believing that they should be able to do so. That is a surprise in many ways, as I thought that it would be easier to write to me about chlamydia or genital warts.
Jim Dowd: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that we discovered from the witnesses who were party to the inquiry that no one is pretending that there was ever a golden age, when everything was fine? They said that things had deteriorated over time and, more often than not, that the service had never been anything more than barely adequate. Given the pressure that it is under, it is now completely incapable of responding.
Mr. Burns: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, although to be fair to myself, I have been trying to make the same point, however inadequately. I specifically said that the problems with treatment and the quality of care did not arise on 1 May 1997 and that they were continuing, for reasons that I went on to mention.
The time when we should have started concentrating on bringing the quality of service up to the expected standard has long since passed. As the Committee's report said, we had quote after quote about the poor condition of buildings in which services and care were provided. More often than not, rooms are tucked away in a corner somewhere on the far side of a hospital site; they are not in a prime position. We heard about the example from Bristol, where services had to be closed down, and about the problems in Manchester.
The Committee also heard about the time that it takes to see a consultant and to get treatment. According to the evidence provided by the Public Health Laboratory Service, the median waiting time for the first appointment in genito-urinary clinics is 12 days for men and 10 days for women. The figures from as recently as 2000 were six days and five days If those figures are accurate, they suggest that there has been a deterioration. The Government's response says that the maximum waiting time to see someone and embark on treatment should be 48 hours by 2005—06 or, if possible, earlier. That is good news, and I welcome it. There is a self-evident danger in people having to wait to see

365WH
someone, and we came across people who had had to wait three weeks plus. The problem—this is true of all conditions, but particularly of chlamydia, which most people are unaware that they have—is that people will probably still be engaging in sexual activity. If they have more than one partner, they will be compounding the problem by spreading the infection. Therefore, it is crucial that they are seen as quickly as possible. There is not only the obvious benefit that they will be able to embark on a course of treatment, but the fact that, while they wait for treatment, they will be prevented from spreading the epidemic further through their activities.
The report's recommendations in that regard are therefore important, and the Government have made great steps forward in their response. However, if there is any way in which the suggested timetable can be brought forward so that the 48-hour waiting period can be implemented before 2005–06—let us not forget that the commitment on waiting times was given last September, which was four months ago—that would be more than welcome, because 2005–06 is a long time to wait. Bringing the implementation forward would mean that we could start getting on with the important task of improving the quality of care.
Finally, the Minister will no doubt say—with some justification, because it is factually correct—that the Government have recently made …35 million, and possibly a little more, available to deal with the problem. That is a good step forward, but, given the catch-up involved, it may be a drop in the ocean. It is crucial not only for public education but for the public treatment of STIs that more priority is given to breaking down the barriers of embarrassment that inhibit people from treating this area of health care in the same way as other, more mainstream areas of health care.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) for meeting my deadline, and I call the Minister to reply to the debate.
5 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson): I welcome the work done by the Health Committee and I am pleased to respond to such a thoughtful and constructive debate on an issue that now has a higher profile. The Health Committee should take its share of the praise for that higher profile attention and for recognising that the Government attach importance to the issue. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and the Committee for the thought provoking, timely and comprehensive report. I am also grateful for the additional comments from the independent advisory group, which responded to issues raised by the Select Committee.
The Government share the deep concerns expressed by the Committee about the poor state of sexual health. It is a significant problem and a priority for the Government, which is why we are committed to making improvements through the sexual health and HIV strategy-the UK's first sexual health strategy. We
366WH
strongly believe that the aims, principles and interventions detailed in the strategy provide the best basis for improving sexual health.
Mr. Burns: Although I agree that the strategy has an important role to play, I discovered from the Minister's civil servants before Christmas that a national strategy is the Department of Health stating what it wants the NHS to do, whereas a national service framework is the Department instructing the NHS precisely what to do. Would not an NSF, in which instruction is given, be better than a strategy, which is simply a Department of Health wish list?
Miss Johnson: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's remarks and I shall come on to the question of a national service framework later. However, I stress that the strategy sets the foundations for implementing progress. That progress has included establishing a sexual health lead in every primary care trust; the rollout of the chlamydia screening programme; the publication of health promotion and commissioning of toolkits and HIV standards to support local implementation; the development of the "sex lottery" campaign; and the establishment of the first Independent Advisory Group on Sexual Health and HIV. We have also strengthened the national team, run conferences across the country to support ongoing work, and made additional investment in services. The strategy has helped us to drive forward important national developments that have supported local implementation. I do not think that the strategy should be viewed in isolation from the practical activity that is designed to deliver the strategy.
Many hon. Members have expressed concerns about the priority the Government have given to improving sexual health. We have acknowledged that sexual health services have suffered from under-investment and a lack of priority for many decades under different Administrations. I am grateful for the comments in acknowledgment of that from the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). However, the Labour Government were the first to develop a comprehensive strategy to tackle sexual ill health. We started that process in 2001 and it was completed in 2002. The Committee's report acknowledges that the strategy is an excellent starting point and a foundation that can be developed in partnership with the key stakeholders including, most importantly, service users. We expect our additional pump-priming money to support the sexual health strategy implementation locally.
The Government's response highlighted that Ministers would
"take every opportunity to underline the importance of sexual health".
We are determined to do that today and in the future. In response to the most recent sexual health statistics, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health said:
"it is vitally important that we address the nation's poor sexual health".
We are therefore working with strategic health authorities to raise the priority of sexual health within the priorities and planning framework and local delivery plans. The chief medical officer recently met chief executives of all of the strategic health authorities to

367WH
highlight the importance that we attach to improving sexual health, and suggested ways in which they could better performance-manage implementation of the strategy to mirror good practice in areas such as Manchester and north-east London, where sexual health already features in local delivery plans.
Sandra Gidley: I am delighted that this meeting has happened, but, as I said earlier, I received a briefing from the FPA, which had audited local delivery plans and found that sexual health was not evident in any way. Can the Minister tell us when we will see a difference and when the FPA will be able to write to hon. Members who are likely to speak in debates such as this to say that the situation has improved?
Miss Johnson: I hope that the next round of local delivery plans will show a changed picture from the one that the hon. Lady has sketched out.
Let me make it clear that we do not propose to develop a national service framework for sexual health, because a strategy is already in place. The strategy is focused on driving up standards and reducing unacceptable variations in services. We have recently published standards based on the NSF model for HIV treatment that provide clear evidence-based recommendations and interventions. Sexual health standards—which cover STIs, reproductive health and signposting to psychosexual services—are under development. We expect that primary care trusts will use those standards to drive service provision.
Mr. Burns: The Minister has said more than once that the Government are determined to improve the quality of care and services. I do not dispute that, but I do not understand, given the Government's determination, why they are content to have a strategy, the definition of which, according to the Minister's own civil servants, is related to what the Department of Health says it would like the NHS to do, rather than have something such as an NSF, which the Department of Health says would instruct the NHS what to do and which would reinforce its determination. Surely, the latter would be a more powerful weapon to achieve what the Minister wants?
Miss Johnson: The hon. Gentleman has reiterated a point that he made a moment ago. The answer lies partly in the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Jim Dowd). If everything is a target or a top priority, nothing is a priority. Despite hon. Members' claims about the demand for more targets, work on targets has shown that those who are given them say that there are problems associated with them, and those who are not given them say, "Give us a target." The hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) was generous enough to acknowledge that she did not normally stand up and demand targets, but it is tempting when trying to focus on something to say, "Let's have a target." Imagine the national implications if we responded to every demand. I am not saying that sexual health has been given a low priority—or, indeed, that it is not being given a high priority. However, there are factors such as the time that the chief medical officer
368WH
spends talking with strategic health authorities. That, and the emphasising of priorities, is not something that is done about everything across the board.
Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; this will be the last time. The Minister cannot pray in aid the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Jim Dowd) and use his words, because he signed up to the Committee report calling for an NSF.
Miss Johnson: I am well aware that my hon. Friend is a member of the Committee.
Mr. Burns: But he signed up to the report.
Miss Johnson: I am well aware of that too, and I am sure that my hon. Friend does not dispute that. I simply referred to his point about how many targets we can have and the implication of having targets and frameworks and issuing instructions. There is a limit to how effective that is past a certain point.
Ms Drown: I thought that one of the ideas behind national service frameworks was to give patients an idea of what they might expect from a particular service. If so, would not the Government want NSFs for many conditions? Ultimately—perhaps in many years' time—the aim might be to have NSFs for everything. Is there real reluctance to adopt an NSF for sexual health because the Government do not want to have NSFs for everything, or because there is a strategy and, as we cannot do everything at once, we should focus first on an NSF for something that does not have a strategy?
Miss Johnson: The answer to that is both. We do not intend to have NSFs for everything; there is a limited number of subjects on which NSFs seem appropriate. Because there is a strategy leading to the development of standards, we argue that those standards will exist anyway. In a sense, that part of the debate is largely about labelling.
In making a wider point about targets, I shall deal with that subject on which many hon. Members touched. Of course, there is a national standard for HIV testing and abortion services, and there is a national goal to reduce newly acquired HIV and gonorrhoea infections. As a result, there is also a commissioning toolkit, a training strategy and other measures that have been put in place in addition to the standards. The abortion access point is included in the star ratings. As hon. Members know, we are working towards the inclusion of a 48-hour waiting time indicator.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and others mentioned work force and capacity—an important subject if we are to deliver more services better to more people. Locally, it is for trusts to determine how the services are configured and to provide quality services to patients. They need to decide the grade and skill mix in their area because they need to judge what will work there. Consultant numbers in genito-urinary medicine increased by 15 per cent. between September 1997 and March 2002. Further growth in consultant numbers will be supported by increases in training places.
The Committee also talked about training. The sexual health training mapping exercise report has been compiled and recommendations have been published on

369WH
a website. The conference for training has been arranged for 19 February to discuss the recommendations and agree action for the future. Those are important components of moving forward and making progress on the problems that face us in sexual health.
I agree with hon. Members that additional investment in sexual health is valuable and is needed if we are to reduce waiting times and modernise premises. The Government have provided a clear lead by investing an additional £47.5 million in implementing the strategy, and we have given a commitment to provide a further £20 million in each of the next two financial years. We have also announced a further investment of £11.4 million in response to the Committee's report, and in November my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced additional capital investment to the tune of £15 million to improve GUM services by modernising premises and facilities in clinics. The funding will be available from April and will be carefully targeted at those clinics in need. Strategic health authorities are already making plans for the improvements that they want and where the money should be spent. The improvements to clinics and other facilities should have a major and immediate impact on the overall quality of service for patients at many of those sites.
I must make it clear that central investment represents only a small proportion of the resources that are available for service development. Shifting the balance of power means that most resources are held locally, as is the power to decide how they are used. There has been a radical transformation of the NHS. We are working towards greater local accountability and flexibility. Considerable new resources are being given to primary care trusts to enable resources to closely match local needs. As well as taking sexual health issues up nationally through the Select Committee and in debates such as this one, hon. Members who are aware of these issues in their own constituencies and areas will be discussing them with the local commissioners.
Dr. Tonge: What the Minister is saying is welcome, but it is all in the future. While these things are being put in place—if that is ever to happen—more cases will arise and more young people will be infected. When will she tell us something about what is happening now and speak about the immediate impact, the publicity campaigns and all the preventive measures that can be taken to stop young people catching diseases?
Miss Johnson: I appreciate the hon. Lady's impatience. One of the problems that I have not yet cracked in responding to debates is how to answer all the strands of questions simultaneously, so I ask her to forgive me if my reply is ordered in a sequence. If she would like me to deal with that point now, I should be happy to do so. Of course, it is important and I accept what she said. There must be a national, as well as a local, dimension to public health. It is for that reason that we have already invested substantial sums in national campaigns on sexual health. The "sex lottery" adult sexual health campaign, which is aimed at people in their late teens arid early 20s, has been running for about a year. So far we have spent some £4 million on that campaign, which complements the one on teenage pregnancy.
Sandra Gidley: I welcome the "sex lottery" campaign, but the Minister may not have had a chance
370WH
to read all the evidence in the report. A young lady powerfully made the point that the campaign was very good and in your face, but said that the information was in the small print, so it was hard to get at what was being said. What assessment has been made of the effectiveness of that campaign, particularly in reaching its target audience?
Sir Nicholas Winterton: Order. Before I allow the Minister to respond, I should say that I have some sympathy with her in trying to deal with all the questions that she was asked during the speeches made earlier in the debate. I hope that from now on interventions will be kept brief or will be non-existent.
Miss Johnson: Thank you, Sir Nicholas.
There is a clear strapline on the campaign: "Use a condom". I am sure that that will please all hon. Members, and particularly the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), who has been strong on that issue throughout the debate. Many hon. Members will not have come across the campaign. With regard to what the hon. Member for West Chelmsford said about national campaigns, these days "national" often means focusing on particular TV channels—and there are no longer just three or four of them. We have to target the channels and commercial breaks when we believe that the target audience will be best represented. We can target the magazines that those people read and the radio stations that they listen to, but-surprise, surprise—MPs are not the target audience, so we will not often see such things. We are assessing the "sex lottery" campaign and its work is being constantly monitored and evaluated to see whether it is effective.
I will not speak in detail about the sums used for campaigns. They are, however, broken down into subcategories. This year, some £2.2 million was spent on HIV, a total of almost £5 million was spent on "sex lottery" campaign leaflets, helplines and Sexual Health Direct, and some £3 million was spent on the teenage pregnancy campaign. This year, the overall total was £10.25 million. An impressive amount of work has been done. The campaigns are targeted, but hon. Members are not the target audience, so the fact that they may not have seen them very often is no indication of whether we are reaching our target.
On the mainstreaming of HIV budgets, I know that the Committee and others had concerns about the transfer of the budgets to main NHS allocations. However, record increases in the budgets and the inclusion of the numbers of people receiving HIV treatment as one of the primary care trust budget weightings will address those concerns. Despite an increase in patient numbers, a recent audit of the use made of the British HIV Association treatment guidelines found hardly any evidence that costs were affecting the prescription of optimum drug treatments for those with clinical need. The evidence is therefore that the provision, although mainstreamed, is still effective and is being used for that purpose.
On reproductive health, we made it clear that sexual health is not only about disease and that improving reproductive health is also important, as is reducing the number of unintended pregnancies—a key aim of the

371WH
strategy. Easy access to the full range of contraception advice is a fundamental health service. The cost-effectiveness of providing a good range of contraceptive services is well documented, and poor provision of services results in higher costs to the NHS due to abortions and unintended pregnancies.
We therefore established a group of key experts to develop and publish a work programme to support improvements to contraceptive services. The group is advising us on how best to target the additional £1 million that we announced for contraceptive services. I strongly endorse the investment in such services, which is simply good sense. It is, in effect, spending to save, as well as a very important part of the solution in providing better sexual health for all. It also brings considerable benefits by helping to reduce the number of teenage pregnancies. the Government are making good progress in this area. We have seen significant drops in teenage pregnancies as a result of that work, which shows that we are succeeding in getting our messages across through the campaign and our support work on teenage pregnancy.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) asked about the role of medical abortion and what we were doing about early medical abortion in a wider range of health care settings. I listened carefully to her comments, and I can tell her that we have identified two pilot sites. We expect to be able to report on the matter in about a year's time, and we will examine the results. We must ensure that any class of place that the Government approve will be approved only if we are content that a woman's safety is not at risk.
Dr. Tonge: The Minister's penultimate point was very important. The fall in teenage pregnancy rates is excellent and very welcome. However, the rise in the number chlamydia cases, for example, shows that the real message is not getting across. People are not having safe sex. They may be preventing pregnancy, but they are not preventing infection. We need to try to find strategies—she loves that word—to get that double message across. One gets more than a baby from having unprotected sex.
Miss Johnson: I would like to make it clear that I do not love strategies; I love to see action on the ground. That is the only real criterion for success. However, strategies play a role, and we have to recognise that.
In the next few minutes, I want to talk about chlamydia and GUM. The Health Protection Agency is working in partnership with the Department to roll out the chlamydia programme. It is collecting data on the programme and monitoring implementation, the numbers screened and so on. That is an important part of the roll-out. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Cotton) will be glad to learn that we are planning to introduce an annual report on the programme. We are also monitoring our implementation of the more sensitive tests for chlamydia in laboratories and will report on progress. As the old form of testing produced a lot of false negatives, many people may have been tested and gone away still carrying the disease. The new DNA-based testing will solve that problem. We
372WH
are monitoring the investment in such areas. Hon. Members will be delighted to hear that primary care trusts have been asked to account to their strategic health authorities as to how they have used the additional investment from the Department.
I announced today that a further 50 primary care trusts will join the chlamydia screening programme, in addition to those in the 10 areas in which it is already up and running. That will mean that a quarter of primary care trusts will be covered by the programme. We will announce the third phase shortly. We have made rapid progress on the issue in two years.
Mr. Hinchliffe: Is there any particular reason why the locations announced today have been chosen? I note that they include rather a lot of primary care trusts in Durham and not one in West Yorkshire.
Miss Johnson: In the light of my hon. Friend's constituency, that was clearly a mistake that we will have to look into. I am sure that we focused on areas that we thought should take priority for health reasons.
England is not alone in facing GUM problems. Since 1995, STIs have increased and there are complex reasons for that. I was interested by the debate raised by many hon. Members about rights and responsibilities, and I am sorry that I do not have time to comment on it. That issue is an important part of the debate, and we should have much more discussion about it. None the less, we must be realistic. Sustained changes in sexual behaviour will not happen overnight, as a number of hon. Members have acknowledged. The process will take time.
We are not merely taking measures to improve access to genito-urinary services. I have mentioned the "sex lottery" campaign, and the chlamydia screening programme is also being rolled out. We are focusing on other initiatives to help increase the priority of GUM services at local level. As we stated in our response to the report, we strongly support the introduction of the 48-hour GUM waiting time indicator for primary care trusts. We are working with the Health Protection Agency to undertake pilot surveys in a number of GUM clinics to seek information on waiting times from patients. Data will be collected on postcodes, making it possible to calculate waiting times for the residents of individual primary care trusts. That will be a first.
If the pilots are successful, the first main survey of clinics will be undertaken in May this year and it should be possible for a waiting times indicator to be put in place for the year 2005–06 at the latest. We will work with the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection on that matter. If we can bring the programme forward, we will do so.
I am sorry that I have not been able to deal at any considerable length with the interesting discussion on the importance of sex and relationships education and the provision for personal social and health education in schools. That is an enormously important part of our work. Ofsted is undertaking a survey in some 80 secondary schools and is planning to issue a series of expected learning actions for key stages 3 and 4. I

373WH
accept that points can be made about sex education—and relationships education in particular—in primary schools. We will consider that issue.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: I congratulate the Minister on endeavouring to deal with all the
374WH
questions. I know that she was not quite able to do so, and I am sure that she will reply to hon. Members whose questions were not dealt with.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Five o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Cycling
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his Department's strategy for(a) increasing cycle journeys and (b) reducing cycling injuries and deaths. [146827]

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

  Euro
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in how many speeches during 2003 he declared support for the Government's policy on the euro. [147294]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 12 January 2004,Official Report, columns 516–17W by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary.

  Inter-city Services (Waterloo)
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by what routes passengers will be able to travel from Manchester to Waterloo to connect with the Eurostar following the withdrawal of existing services; and whether the Newport to Waterloo service will be withdrawn in May. [147969]

  Mr. McNulty
  Passengers can travel to London Euston and connect with London Underground services to Waterloo, a journey of around 3 hours 20 minutes (the Manchester—London Waterloo direct service takes over six hours). Direct services between Newport and London Waterloo will be withdrawn from May. However, alternative services will continue to operate to London Paddington.

DEFENCE

  Communications
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Cormorant system will enter into service; and what delays have occurred in the programme. [147277]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Cormorant Communication System has an approved in-service date of May 2004 which is expected to be achieved. This will be some 19 months later than the latest date originally approved for entry into service.

  Decoy Munitions
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which contractors tendered for the design, development, build and supply of cartridge RF distraction Mark 216 Model 3; when the winner will be announced; when production will commence; and if he will make a statement. [146632]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 13 January 2004]: The closing date for receipt of bids from industry to supply the Seagnat 216 Model 3 RF Distraction Round was 18 December 2003. I am withholding further details in accordance with Exemption 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information as the tender evaluation process is at a very early stage and is classified Commercial in Confidence. It is anticipated that the contract will be let by the end of May 2004, enabling production to commence to meet the stated in service date for the round, which is December 2007.

  Defence Information Infrastructure Programme
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what funding is being made available to the Defence Information Infrastructure (Future) Deployed programme. [147279]

  Mr. Ingram
  We are continuing to investigate the full requirement and costs for an enhanced Defence Information Infrastructure (DII) (Future-Deployed) capability, and no formal budget has yet been approved. Funding for some elements of the programme will come from existing provision for in-service systems that DII (Future-Deployed) will subsume, such as updates to current Navy and Army administrative information systems. Any additional funding required will be sought through the normal departmental resource planning process.

  The Ministry of Defence is also investing significantly in other programmes to develop our information infrastructure for deployed operations, such as Skynet 5 (satellite communications services); Cormorant (voice and data communications services to support Joint Rapid Reaction force deployments); Falcon (tactical formation level secure communications), and Bowman (tactical secure voice and data system).

  Leak Inquiries
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what inquiries his Department has conducted into alleged leaks from members of staff since 1997; and on what occasions 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. [147007]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 12 January 2004]: Since 1997, the Ministry of Defence has investigated 47 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.

  Major Ian Hill
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the findings of the Cheshire Coroner, regarding the death of Major Ian Hill; and if he will make a statement. [147143]

  Mr. Caplin
  We are aware of the Cheshire Coroner's conclusion of 24 November 2003 as to the death of Edward Ian Hill. To facilitate our understanding of the Cheshire Coroner's conclusion, officials wrote to him on 19 December 2003 under the Coroner Rules of 1984, requesting copies of reports of the post mortem examination and any special examinations, notes of evidence and documents put in evidence at the inquest. We understand that delivery of the letter was delayed. The Coroner has confirmed that he is dealing with our request.

  Medical Flights
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many medical flights, involving civilians, were conducted by military aircraft between Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom in each of the last five years. [147521]

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

  We do not hold information about Medevac flights in a form which allows easy analysis of the point of origin and final destination of each trip. Those flights which cross the borders between Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom are thought to be few in number and mainly confined to transplant patients.

  Microsoft
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether negotiations between his Department and Microsoft regarding future licensing arrangements have been completed; and if he will make a statement. [147552]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence has now completed negotiations with Microsoft regarding the continuation of future licensing arrangements for a range of software products (the 'Enterprise Agreement'). However, formal signature has not been completed at this stage. The new licensing arrangements will deliver savings to the Department and will come into effect in April 2004.

  MOD Police Pensions
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason employment services with the armed service is not considered relevant for pensions entitlement for employees who transfer to the MOD police. [147681]

  Mr. Caplin
  Under the rules of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme, a civil servant whose pensionable service begins on or after 1 January 1986 may apply in writing to bring in a transfer value in respect of any accrued pension benefits within 12 months of the date on which he or she takes up pensionable service in the PCSPS.
  820W
  The Public Sector Transfer Club (the Club) consists of a number of occupational pension schemes which have agreed reciprocal transfer arrangements. The Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS) is a participant of the Club. Members joining the PCSPS before 6 April 1988 had to apply for a Club transfer within six months of becoming a member. Members joining after 6 April 1988 have to apply within 12 months of doing so.

  Before this, arrangements were set up in 1979 to enable transfer between the AFPS and the PCSPS under which those who had left the armed forces on or after 1 April 1975 without immediate pension benefits could apply for a transfer into the PCSPS. The deadline for applications was 30 June 1980.

  Reserve Forces
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many appeals have been made by employers against compulsory call-out notices to their employees in each of the last five years; and how many of those appeals were allowed in each year. [R] [147134]

  Mr. Caplin
  As at 12 January 2004 only 41 employers had lodged an appeal against the compulsory call-out of their employees under the appeals procedure set out in Part IX of the Reserve Forces Act 1996. Of these, seven were awarded to the Service authority, one was awarded to the employer, one remained outstanding and 32 were withdrawn before going to appeal. All of these appeals were lodged in 2003.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many compulsory call-out notices were issued to serving members of the Territorial Army in 2003; and how many of the recipients were actually mobilised. [R] [147135]

  Mr. Caplin
  During 2003 9,765 compulsory call-out notices were issued to serving members of the Territorial Army. Of these, 6,681 were subsequently mobilised.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many individuals have been mobilised after receiving a compulsory call-out notice more than once in the last three years. [R] [147262]

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

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the Territorial Army mobilised after receiving a compulsory call-out notice have served for(a) up to four months, (b) four to six months, (c) six months to one year and (d) over one year in the last three years. [R] [147263]

  Mr. Caplin
  The number of Territorial Army personnel who have been mobilised, during the period 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2003, after receiving a compulsory call-out notice is shown according to length of service in the table.

  Number

  Up to four months

  3,259

  Four to six months

  1,573

  Six months to one year

  3,137

  Over one year

  43

  821W
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his written statement of 7 January 2004,Official Report, column 9–10WS, on reserve forces, what his policy is in respect of (a) full-time regular Service and (b) compulsory call-out when making provision for medium-sized operations of low intensity. [R] [147471]

  Mr. Caplin
  The reserve forces are an integral part of the United Kingdom's military capability for a wide variety of different types of operations. Many factors will determine the number of reservists required to support a particular operation and whether it is necessary to mobilise reservists compulsorily. These factors include: the size of the operation; other concurrent operations; the time available to set up and train a force before deployment; the expected length of a particular operation; the individual skills and trades required; and the pool of people available with the requisite qualifications.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) Territorial Army, (b) Royal Naval Reserve and (c) RAF Reserve personnel remain available for mobilisation. [147725]

  Mr. Caplin
  [holding answer 13 January 2004]: As at 1 December 2003, the following Volunteer Reserve personnel were available for mobilisation:

  Territorial Army: 28,400

  Royal Navy Reserve: 2,670

  Royal Marines Reserve: 750

  Royal Auxiliary Air Force: 1,300.

  These figures include untrained strengths (while untrained, they have a call-out liability), but exclude those who are currently mobilised, those serving on Full Time Reserve Service, Additional Duties Commitment and members of the Officer Training Corps.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been paid in(a) reservist standard award and (b) reservist hardship award to mobilised reservists in each of the last five years; and how many individuals were involved in each case. [R] [147260]

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

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes to reservist standard award are planned; and when they will be implemented. [R] [147261]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Defence White Paper made clear that work is in hand to produce new regulations governing the award of both Reservist Standard Award and Reservists Hardship Award. The new regulations will take into account the lessons arising from the mobilisation for Iraq. It is too early to state what the finalised proposals might be. However, once the MOD has completed our deliberations we plan to publish a consultation document to seek the views of interested parties prior to the issue of the final regulations.

  Service Children's Education
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many children currently benefit from boarding school allowance; and what the cost of the scheme is in 2003–04. [147138]
  822W
  Mr. Caplin
  The cost of the scheme in each of the school terms in 2003 is as follows:

  Term

  Number of children

  Cost(£)

  Spring 2003 (January-March)

  4,332

  13,660,611.01

  Summer 2003 (April-July)

  4,406

  13,655,127.27

  Autumn 2003 (September-December)

  4,277

  14,744,626.76

  Total cost

  42,060,365.04

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the funding per pupil by Service Children's Education was in each of the last five years. [147140]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Agency's Annual Report and Accounts for the past five years contain details of the Annual Operating Costs of Service Children's Education (SCE) together with the pupil numbers served. Copies of these are available in the Library of the House.

  It is not possible to provide the information in the format requested. The Quinquennial Review Team recognised that simple cost comparisons between Service Children's Education (SCE) and local education authorities in the United Kingdom cannot be made due to a number of factors. These include the differences in funding mechanisms between the two parent Departments. the accounting requirements placed on SCE as a Defence Agency, and most notably the additional costs incurred by the Agency brought about by operating in an overseas environment.

  In addition to the Annual Reports, a series of cost calculations showing a number of different tabulations for pupil costs are contained at Annex E to the Quinquennial Report published in May 2003, a copy is which is available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the academic and education targets set for Service Children's Education schools in each of the last five years, and what assessment he has made of the extent to which these targets have been met or exceeded. [147141]

  Mr. Caplin
  In common with other Defence Agencies, Service Children's Education publishes its Annual Report and Accounts each year. The Agency's Key Targets and performance against them are contained within these documents, copies of which are held in the Library of the House. The Annual Report covering 2002–03 is scheduled for publication in January 2004.

  Tornado
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether all the rear weapon suspension points on all the shoulder pylons fitted to RAF Tornado GR4 aircraft fully comply with Military Standard 1760; and if he will make a statement. [147549]

  Mr. Ingram
  Military Standard 1760 is specifically concerned with the location of electrical connector access points in relation to the weapon suspension points on the shoulder pylons. Due to space constraints the weapon electrical connector access points cannot be located at the position defined by Military Standard 1760 on the Tornado GR4. NATO Stanag 3558 does
  823W
  however, provide the option to locate the electrical connector at either the Military Standard 1760 position or at a specified alternative location; it is this alternative that has been utilised on the Tornado GR4.

WALES

  Government of Wales Act
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what functions have been transferred to the National Assembly for Wales pursuant to section 22 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 since 1998. [147047]

  Mr. Hain
  The functions are too numerous to list but they can be found in the following National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Orders:
  1999 No.672: which made the initial transfer of the functions of the Secretary of State for Wales to the Assembly;

  1999 No.2787: which transferred functions under the Water Industry Act 1999;

  2000 No.253: which made amendments to the original 1999 Order;

  2000 No.1830: which entitled the Assembly to be joined as a party in relevant Human Rights Act cases;

  2001 No.3679: which relates to Intervention Board functions.

  Procurement
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his Department's procurement policy with regard to offshore IT and call centre outsourcing; whether his Department is outsourcing IT and call centre jobs to offshore companies; to which countries his Department has outsourced these jobs; how much his Department has spent on this outsourcing in each of the last two years; and how much has been budgeted for this purpose for the next two years. [147580]

  Mr. Hain
  The Wales Office has not outsourced any jobs to offshore companies and has no plans to do so in the future.

  Richard Commission Report
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales on the forthcoming Richard Commission report. [141188]

  Mr. Hain
  The First Minister and I meet regularly and we have discussed the Richard Commission on a number of these occasions.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Live Music Forum
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the remit of the Government's taskforce The Live Music Forum; and whether it extends to Northern Ireland. [147573]

  Estelle Morris
  The Live Music Forum will work with the music industry and other key stakeholders to:824W

  take forward the Ministerial commitment to maximise the take-up of reforms in the Licensing Act 2003 relating to the performance of live music;

  promote the performance of live music generally;

  monitor and evaluate the impact of the Licensing Act 2003 on the performance of live music; and

  make recommendations for further action.

  The Licensing Act 2003 applies to England and Wales. Therefore, the Live Music Forum's remit extends only to those countries.

  Ofcom
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what the projected total annual salary bill of Ofcom is for its first year of operation; [145499]

  (2) how many Ofcom employees will have an annual salary of £100,000 or over; [145500]

  (3) how many people will be employed by Ofcom; [145501]

  (4) what the estimated total cost is of setting up Ofcom; [145502]

  (5) if she will estimate the (a) set-up and (b) annual running costs of the Ofcom buildings. [145503]

  Estelle Morris
  These are matters for the Office of Communications (Ofcom). DCMS officials have, therefore, asked the Chief Executive of Ofcom to respond directly to the hon. Member. Copies of the Chief Executive's letter will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Agricultural Support
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the level of(a) Green Box support, (b) Amber Box support and (c) Blue Box support is from the UK Government to agriculture. [146645]

  Alun Michael
  The level of agricultural support, categorised by Green, Amber and Blue boxes, is notified to the World Trade Organisation for the European Union and is not separately identified by member state. The latest published notification of domestic support for the European Union is for the marketing year 1999–2000 and records the level of Green Box support as €19.9 billion; Amber Box €47.9 billion; and Blue Box €19.8 billion.

  Climate Change
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will assess the implications for the United Kingdom of the article on climate change impacts in the United Kingdom and other countries over the next half century by Professor Chris Thomas of Leeds University, published in Nature in January. [147688]
  825W
  Mr. Morley
  The article in Nature indicated that about a quarter of the land species in the areas studied could be committed to extinction in 2050 under midrange global climate warming scenarios. However the article did not provide a prediction for extinction rates in the UK.

  The Department, along with the devolved Administrations, statutory nature conservation agencies and non-governmental organisations, is contributing to an ongoing research programme on the impacts of climate change on biodiversity in the UK. Results suggest that as climate changes, the distribution of species and the composition of habitats will change. With warmer temperatures, some northern species are likely to retreat, while southern species may be able to expand their ranges. Movement of some species may be strongly impeded by our highly fragmented landscapes, possibly leading to local extinctions.

  The Department also plans to commission an update of its "Review of the impact of climate change on UK species and habitat conservation (2000)". The latter report is available on the internet www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/climatechange/nature/index.htm and will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Departmental Relocation
  Joan Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessment her Department has made of the benefits of relocation of staff to North Staffordshire; and if she will make a statement; [146863]

  (2) what assessment her Department has made of the effect of possible relocation of staff in her Department to North Staffordshire on (a) job creation, (b) sustainable development, (c) the local economy and (d) tackling regional economic disparities; and if she will make a statement; [146892]

  (3) what assessment she 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; [146879]

  (4) what plans she has to establish procedures for assessing the impact of possible re-location of staff in her Department to the regions; and if she will make a statement. [146923]

  Alun Michael
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, on 12 January 2004,Official Report, column 516W.

  Euro
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in how many speeches during 2003 she declared support for the Government's policy on the euro. [147303]

  Alun Michael
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 12 January 2004,Official Report, column 516W.

  European Definitions (Fruit and Vegetables)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidance she will provide to fruit and vegetable retailers following the Law Lords' decision on the case against Asda relating to European Union definitions of fruit and vegetables. [146719]

  Alun Michael
  No new guidance is required. The Law Lords' decision does not affect either the EU marketing standards themselves or the existing obligations of fruit and vegetable retailers. Guidance is already availalble from Defra's Horticultural Marketing Inspectorate, who advise on and enforce the standards, and from the Defra website http://www.defra.gov.uk/hort/hmi.htm. Information on this site includes copies of the standards, contact details for inspectors and a retailers' guide.

  Food Exporters
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what sums were made available to(a) UK and (b) EU companies for the restitution of funds to assist with exporting costs in each of the last three years. [147051]

  Alun Michael
  During the years 2001, 2002 and 2003 the Rural Payments Agency paid approximately £125.4 million, £138.7 million and £170.2 million respectively in export refunds to companies claiming in the United Kingdom.

  For the whole of the European Union, payments made during 2000 and 2001 amounted to 5.6 billion euros and €3.4 billion respectively. The figure for 2003 is not yet available.

  GM Rice
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what advice she has received from the Advisory Committee on Releases into the Environment on the proposal by Bayer to import GM rice into the EU for processing and animal feed. [148307]

  Mr. Morley
  The application by Bayer for the importation of herbicide tolerant rice (event LLRICE62) into the European Union is being considered under the procedures set out in Directive 2001/18/EC. The UK is the lead member state and therefore undertakes the initial assessment. The Government has been advised by ACRE that "This GM rice does not pose a risk to human health and the environment. The marketing of this product for importation and processing in the UK will be no different from that of other rice imported for processing and animal feed purposes. In coming to this conclusion ACRE have taken account of the advice of the Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs (ACAF). ACRE
  827W
  also recommends that reports of post market monitoring for general surveillance of this product be provided to the regulatory authorities on an annual basis". The complete ACRE advice is available on the Defra website at: www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/regulation/euconsent.htm.

  The application and the UK's assessment will now be assessed by other EU member states and the Commission before a collective decision is made. Consent, if granted, would not permit cultivation of the rice in the EU nor, without separate approval, could it be used in human food.

  Horse Passport
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether a veterinary inspection and certification is necessary prior to the issue of a horse passport. [147945]

  Alun Michael
  No.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the horse passport regulations apply to the wild horses on Bodmin Moor. [147947]

  Alun Michael
  Yes.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to change the requirement for veterinary certification on horse passports. [147948]

  Alun Michael
  The silhouette on a passport must be signed by a veterinary surgeon or someone deemed competent to do so by the Passport Issuing Organisation. This is clearly the intention of the legislation but recently we became aware that some passport issuing organisations were allowing individual horse owners to complete and sign the silhouette. Independent verification is clearly essential. In underlining this point to the organisations I have proposed that the owner may complete the silhouette provided a microchip is inserted at the same time. This reflects our approach of working with the industry and seeking to be practical rather than gold plating the legislation.

  Marine Stewardship Report
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has made to introduce legislation to protect and manage the marine environment following the publication of the Marine Stewardship Report. [147538]

  Mr. Morley
  The Marine Stewardship Report announced a Review of Controls on Development in Marine and Coastal Waters. It also announced a Pilot project in the Irish Sea as the next step of the Review of Marine Nature Conservation. Both of these Reviews are examining whether new arrangements, including new legislation, are required to better manage and protect 828W
  the marine environment. The Government will take a decision on whether new legislation is needed once it has seen the recommendations from these Reviews.

  Single Farm Payment
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the Government's policy is on the single farm payment. [148308]

  Alun Michael
  We hope to make an announcement on the model for allocating entitlements under the new single payment scheme in a matter of weeks.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research she has commissioned into illegal culling activity in TB hot spot areas. [148304]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  As part of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial, a proportion of setts within the survey only treatment areas are regularly checked for evidence of illegal activity, including badger digging and other signs of unauthorised culling or interference.

  There is currently no Defra commissioned research on illegal culling outside of the badger culling trial areas.

CABINET OFFICE

  E-Government Services
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what new proposals he has to extend e-Government services. [146494]

  Mr. Alexander
  66 per cent. of Government services are now available on-line. Departments continue to make progress towards our target for making all services available electronically by 2005, with key services achieving high levels of take-up.

  Later this year, we will pilot an enhanced customer offering for the delivery of electronic services designed around the needs of customers.

  Leak Inquiries
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what inquiries his Department has conducted into alleged leaks from members of staff since 1997; and on what occasions 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. [147010]

  Mr. Alexander
  Since 1997, my Department has investigated 10 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 long-standing practice of successive governments not to comment on the outcome of such inquiries in order to safeguard security and investigative arrangements.

  Small Business Regulation
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will estimate the total savings for small businesses that would accrue from those measures listed in the Regulatory Reform Action Plan, which have yet to be implemented. [147606]

  Mr. Alexander
  The updated Regulatory Reform Action Plan (RRAP), which was published in December 2003, contained over 650 deregulatory measures, many of which will benefit small businesses. Examples of these are highlighted throughout the RRAP. Individual Regulatory Impact Assessments will be produced by the relevant Departments identifying benefits and savings from these measures as appropriate.

  £ million

  FY 01–02

  FY 02–03

  FY 03–04

  FY 04–05

  FY 05–06

  DFID Afghanistan Programme

  46

  75.5

  55

  55

  60

  Global Conflict Prevention Pool (joint DFID-FCO-MOD)

  13

  16.8

  18

  tba

  We also provide about £40 million each year to Afghanistan through multilateral channels like the United Nations and EC.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of the financial assistance from his Department to Afghanistan in 2003–04 has been directed towards the long-term development of the country. [148582]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID has allocated £55 million so far to Afghanistan this year, in addition to contributions to the joint FCO-DFID-MOD Global Conflict Prevention Pool and various multilateral organisations. £37.5 million of this has been disbursed to date. All of this financial assistance contributes to the long-term development of Afghanistan, including the £8 million we have provided in humanitarian assistance to support returning refugees, health and education.

  Street Children
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many street children he estimates there are in each country of Asia. [148130]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  It is difficult to provide accurate data on the overall numbers of street children in Asia or to provide a breakdown by country. Estimates are unreliable and coverage is patchy. According to UNICEF there are roughly about 25 million children estimated to be living on the streets in Asia. However there is no reliable information for many Asian countries. In India the Ministry of Social Welfare estimates that there are between 75,000 and 250,000 street children in Calcutta alone. UNICEF estimate there are 15,000 street children in Vietnam and 16,000 in Sri Lanka.

  The fundamental cause of children living on the street is poverty. This is exacerbated by chronic hunger, lack of school places and family conflict. Between 30 per cent. to 50 per cent. of children in South Asia are malnourished. Despite improvements in education provision around 41 per cent. of children drop out of school before they reach the fifth grade. Between 30 per

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money has been allocated by his Department to Afghanistan in each of the last three years; and how much has been pledged for(a) 2004–05 and (b) 2005–06. [148101]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The table shows the allocations made to Afghanistan by the Department for International Development Afghanistan in each of the last three years and how much has been allocated for financial years 2004–05 and 2005–06.

  cent. to 55 per cent. of school age children are working. Many of these children are exploited through child labour or are involved in the sex industry. Unless these problems are addressed the problems of street children in Asia will continue to grow.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money has been provided by his Department in each of the last six years to tackle the problem of street children in Asia; what proportion of the money has been spent by whom; and with what results. [148131]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  Urban poverty, homelessness, lack of education and the demand for child labour forces children to leave their families and live on the streets in Asia. It is important that these underlying problems are addressed as well as helping street children directly. Our bilateral programmes in Asia aim to alleviate family poverty more generally as a basis for addressing the needs of street children.

  Many of our programmes support NGO activities that advocate for the rights of children and work directly with street children. In Bangladesh we are supporting two NGOs to provide informal education to vulnerable working children in urban areas at a cost of £8 million. In Burma we have been supporting a street and working children project with World Vision at a total cost of £450,000. In India we are supporting a local NGO to work with child street vendors and have several other small projects in the pipeline focusing on vulnerable working children in urban areas.

  We are providing £1.6 million to Save the Children to work directly with vulnerable children in the Mekong sub region. This project aims to prevent poor rural children being trafficked to urban areas in the region for purposes of sexual exploitation and under age employment. This helps to reduce the potential for these children to end up on the street.

  Other DFID activities also contribute directly to addressing the problems of street children. Improving basic education for every child is the main contribution that Asian Governments can make to reducing child

  831W
  poverty and indirectly to reducing the numbers of street children. Support to basic education is a major focus of our bilateral programme in Asia and in 2001–02 DFID committed £130 million to support this.

  Another example is the £12 million urban poverty reduction project in Cochin in India that has helped to improve basic services for poor families and their children.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Provisional IRA
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the remaining amounts of weaponry and ammunition held by the Provisional IRA. [147042]

  Jane Kennedy
  This information requested is only available from intelligence sources and in line with Part 2 of The Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, it would be inappropriate for the Government to comment. The Government and the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning have consistently made clear that they will continue to pursue complete decommissioning by all paramilitary organisations to ensure that there is a permanent end to paramilitary activity in all its forms.

  Crime Statistics (Coleraine)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the total value of(a) house burglaries and (b) attacks on the person in the Coleraine borough in the last three years; and what additional resources have been made available to address this problem. [145103]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information is not fully available in the format requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The table sets out the number of domestic burglary and personal robbery offences within Coleraine District Council.

  Domestic burglaries

  Personal robberies

  2000–01

  228

  27

  2001–02

  405

  28

  2002–03

  304

  30

  Depending on its nature, an 'attack on the person' can be recorded separately as a 'violent crime' (a category which also includes all offences against the person, sexual offences) or as an 'offence against the person' (this also includes assaults, intimidation and harassment offences), but a statistical breakdown could be established only at disproportionate cost.

  It is not possible to establish the total value of property stolen or damaged, if any, as a result of these offences as there is no requirement for the police to keep a record of individuals' losses or the cost of repairs to properties.
  832W
  The police in Coleraine are tackling this type of crime through a number of means including intelligence-led policing and the provision of a full-time analyst dedicated to providing crime pattern analysis and the identification of crime hotspots. Additionally, a local crime team has been initiated and is being supported by a technical support group in respect of specific operations and a property-marking scheme is due to be piloted this year in a particular crime hotspot within the district council area.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) house searches, (b) arrests and (c) convictions have taken place involving members of Loyalists paramilitary groups in the Coleraine borough in each year since 2000. [145104]

  Jane Kennedy
  To supply the information specifically with regard to Loyalist groups would incur a disproportionate cost. However, the following table provides details of the number of house searches carried out in the Coleraine borough since 2000. Authorisations were issued to search dwelling houses for munitions, transmitters, scanning receivers and wireless apparatus.

  Financial year

  Number of house searches

  2000–01

  22

  2001–02

  25

  2002–03

  4

  2003–04 (to 30 September)

  7

  Helicopter Accident (Lough Foyle)
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the results were of the investigation into the accident involving a military helicopter in Lough Foyle, County Londonderry on 19 July 2002. [147045]

  Mr. Caplin
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Board of Inquiry into the accident is not yet complete. The investigation is expected to be completed later in the year and I will write to the hon. Member with the outcome and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Local Government Officers Superannuation Fund
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the current funding level of the Northern Ireland Local Government Officers' Superannuation Fund. [147533]

  Angela Smith
  The Northern Ireland Local Government Officers' Superannuation Committee is required, by regulation, to obtain an actuarial valuation of the assets and liabilities of its pension fund every three years. The next actuarial valuation exercise takes place on 31 March 2004. Each quarter the Committee and the fund's actuary monitor the position and the Department of the Environment is advised accordingly, on a regular basis.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the estimated additional cost of a rise in the current employer contribution rate to 11.9 per cent. for the Northern Ireland Local Government Officers'
  833W
  Superannuation Fund would be to his Department's annual budget; and whether the spending plans for 2005–06 reflect such a possible increase. [147534]

  Angela Smith
  For all employing authorities contributing to the Northern Ireland Local Government Officers' Superannuation Fund, the estimated cost of an increase from the current employer contribution rate of 4.6 per cent. to 11.9 per cent. would incur further contribution income amounting to £32,605,830 in one year. There are currently 209 employing authorities, including district councils, education and library boards, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, Housing Associations and certain schools and colleges, all of which would have to budget for any increase.

  The rate of 11.9 per cent. is, however, at this stage, an indication of the potential required increase and the position will be determined when the actuarial valuation of the fund, as at 31 March 2004, is obtained by the Northern Ireland Local Government Officers' Superannuation Committee. It is anticipated that a stepped approach to increasing contribution rates would be adopted, over the period 1 April 2005 to 31 March 2007. The position would also be reassessed at the 31 March 2007 valuation. Efforts would be made to keep annual increases in the contribution rate within the range of 2 per cent. to 4 per cent. of pensionable payroll. 2005–06 spending plans do not, as yet, take account of any potential increase.

  Paramilitary Beatings
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many paramilitary beatings were reported in each of the last six years. [146307]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information requested is outlined in the following table.

  Number of casualties as a result of paramilitary style assaults

  By Loyalist

  By Republican

  Total

  1998

  89

  55

  144

  1999

  90

  44

  134

  2000

  78

  54

  132

  2001

  93

  53

  146

  2002

  89

  50

  139

  2003

  102

  46

  148

  Prison Service
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the(a) Director General and (b) Director of Operations of the Northern Ireland Prison Service have been provided with accommodation on the Stormont estate. [146174]

  Jane Kennedy
  Neither(a) the Director General nor (b) the Director of Operations of the Northern Ireland Prison Service has been provided with accommodation on the Stormont Estate.

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the cost to public funds has been of providing accommodation in the Stormont Estate for the Director General and Director of Operations of the Northern Ireland Prison Service. [147219]
  834W
  Jane Kennedy
  It is standard practice for office accommodation for all civil servants to be arranged by their individual agency/department.

  In the case of the Director General and Director of Operations of the Northern Ireland Prison Service, office accommodation in the Stormont Estate is provided through Northern Ireland Prison Service Headquarters at Dundonald House.

PRIME MINISTER

  Government Buildings
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will make a statement on the rules regarding the use of party political advertising material in Government buildings; [148160]

  (2) when the guidance on the use of Government buildings for party political purposes was last updated; [148058]

  (3) what measures are taken by his officials to enforce the rules regulating the party political use of Government buildings; and how many times they have been breached since 1997. [148059]

  The Prime Minister
  Section 6 of the Ministerial Code, which was last revised in June 2001, provides guidance on the use of Government property for party political purposes. Section 3 of the Civil Service Code, which was last revised in May 1999, is also relevant and it is for each Department to enforce the rules. No central records on this are held.

  Honours Committee
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister whether the source of the leaked minutes of the Honours Committee has been found; and if he will make a statement. [148399]

  The Prime Minister
  In order to safeguard security and investigative arrangements, it has been the practice of successive governments not to comment on the conduct and outcome of leak inquiries.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what the(a) number and (b) salary cost of special advisers was in each Department in each year from 1995–96 to 2002–03; and if he will make a statement; [147656]

  (2) what the total salary cost for special advisers is estimated to be for 2003–04; and how many special advisers there are in each pay band, broken down by Department. [147657]

  The Prime Minister
  Since July 2002, I have published on an annual basis details of the number of special advisers by pay band and Department and their overall cost. Information for the financial years 2002–03 and 2003–04 is available in the Library of the House. The total salary cost for special advisers in 2003–04 will be published as soon as the information is available at the end of the financial year.
  835W
  For information for the period 1995–96 to 2000–01, I refer the hon. Member to the answer the Minister for the Cabinet Office gave to him on 31 January 2003, Official Report, columns 1056–57W.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Access to Justice
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what assessment the Department has made of the extent to which(a) the closure of county magistrates courts and (b) the pressure on the Courts Service's outlying civil and family estate affect the distance people are required to travel to have access to justice in each region. [147673]

  Mr. Leslie
  The extra time and distance people are required to travel is always carefully considered when magistrates courts are closed. Other factors taken into consideration are workload, the facilities available and the costs of renovations which would be required to bring a court up to standard. All of these are assessed when I consider any appeal on a magistrates court closure.

  The Court Service has been working with the Magistrates Courts Committees to look at the opportunities to share court accommodation to ease the pressure on the court estate and thereby improve access to justice.

  Asylum
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Home Affairs on delivering an efficient asylum process. [146671]

  Mr. Lammy
  In the last 12 months the Lord Chancellor and then the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor has had eight separate meetings which were scheduled to discuss asylum and 15 separate meetings which were scheduled to discuss reform of the criminal justice system with the Home Secretary. They will also have discussed these issues in the context of other meetings.

  The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor and I work closely with the Secretary of State for Home Affairs on asylum issues and meet regularly.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many asylum appeals were considered by(a) the Court of Appeal and (b) the House of Lords in each of the past two years; and how many such appeals succeeded. [143359]

  Mr. Lammy
  During the two-year period between 1 December 2001 and 30 November 2003, the Court of Appeal Civil Division made decisions in 248 appeals 836W
  which were classified as relating to Immigration and Asylum matters. Five of these appeals were brought by the Secretary of State.

  Of these, 64 were allowed by the court, two of which were brought by the Secretary Of State.

  These figures do not include applications for permission to appeal.

  We have no information on how many asylum appeals are considered by the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs when he will reply to the letter to him dated 25 November 2003 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Jahangir Shah. [147612]

  Mr. Leslie
  A reply to my right hon. Friend was signed by the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor and sent on Monday 12 January.

  International Human Rights Instruments
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs when the Interdepartmental Review on International Human Rights Instruments was due to report to Ministers; when Ministers received this report; when the outcomes of this review will be made available; and if he will make a statement. [147446]

  Mr. Lammy
  The terms of reference for the review were that it should report in spring 2003. The very wide scope of the review, and the number of Departments involved, have caused the review to take longer than expected. We will announce its outcomes to Parliament as soon as is reasonably possible.

  Legal Funding
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what discussions the Secretary of State has had with the Legal Services Commission on the funding of(a) human rights cases and (b) cases brought through legal aid against the closures of care homes for elderly people; and whether he was consulted by the Commission on the funding of such cases pursued by Hossacks Solicitors, of Kettering. [147464]

  Mr. Lammy
  Regular discussions take place between my Department and the Legal Services Commission about funding policy, of which human rights issues form an important part, given that cases which allege human rights violations by public bodies are a priority for Community Legal Service funding.

  No discussions specifically concerning the funding of individual human rights cases, or publicly-funded cases against the closures of care homes for the elderly, have been held with Ministers. Nor have Ministers been consulted on the funding of such cases pursued by Hossacks Solicitors, as Ministers cannot intervene in individual funding applications.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Racial Hatred
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Solicitor-General what guidelines she has issued to the Crown Prosecution Service on the question of deciding what constitutes(a) prima facie evidence warranting and (b) a public interest supporting consideration of a prosecution for inciting racial hatred. [147846]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Code for Crown Prosecutors requires, as the hon. Member's question reflects, that in every case the prosecutor considers:(a) whether there is enough evidence to make it more likely than not that there will be a conviction and; (b) that the public interest supports a prosecution. There is a presumption under the code that it is in the public interest to prosecute racially aggravated offences in any case where there is a racial motivation against the victim.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Solicitor-General what criteria are applied to decisions on whether prosecutions for alleged racial hatred are in the public interest. [147849]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service reviews all allegations of inciting racial hatred in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

  All cases are considered individually on their own merits, but must meet both tests set out in the Code namely the evidential and public interest tests. When considering the public interest of such prosecutions, the Code for Crown Prosecutors specifically states that

  "a prosecution is likely to be needed if the offence was motivated by any form of discrimination against the victim's ethnic or national origin".

  All such cases are dealt with by Casework Directorate at CPS Headquarters where a team of specialist prosecutors reviews them. The consent of the Attorney-General must be obtained before any such prosecution can take place.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on the work of the Crown Prosecution Service with the Nottingham Criminal Justice Board in connecting the criminal justice system with local people. [147847]

  The Solicitor-General
  Ms Kate Carty, the Chief Crown Prosecutor for CPS Nottinghamshire, is an active member of the Local Criminal Justice Board, she chairs two important sub-groups: one on improving the service to vulnerable and intimidated victims and witnesses; the other on improving communications between the criminal justice agencies and the community. She also leads an initiative to ensure, through schools, that young people in Nottinghamshire are aware of the work and structure of their Local Criminal Justice Board.
  838W
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on the role of the specialist prosecutors of street crime at the Crown Prosecution Service. [147848]

  The Solicitor-General
  In the 10 Street Crime Areas there are specialist prosecutors for prosecuting street crime cases (the premium service) in order to prosecute with the charge right first time and to help to secure the best evidence, reduce delays and focus resources.

  The premium service has worked well in Lancashire and we have seen sustained improved performance, with significant decreases in the level of early terminations of cases.

  Youth Justice
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on her responsibilities in relation to(a) anti-social behaviour by youths and (b) youth justice matters. [147850]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is working with local authorities and other criminal justice agencies to ensure a strategic and effective response to anti-social behaviour by youths.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Correspondence
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Minister for Women when she will reply to the letter sent to her Department on 21 July by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell on behalf of Mavish Kentish of Laburnum Road, Epsom. [143199]

  Jacqui Smith
  In consultation with DWP and HMT officials it has been decided that Inheritance Tax falls within the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Please accept my sincere apologies for the delay in transferring your letter. I have asked that a response be sent to you as a matter of urgency.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many absent parents have subsequently been assessed for a change in circumstances by the Child Support Agency after failing to respond to a request for details of change of circumstances by post; [147472]

  (2) what procedure is followed by the Child Support Agency to determine the accuracy of address information on absent parents when they receive no response to postal requests for information on change of circumstances; [147473]

  (3) what recent discussions he has had with the Child Support Agency on procedures for contacting absent parents to ascertain changes in circumstances; [147474]
  839W
  (4) how many requests to absent parents by the Child Support Agency for details of change of circumstances were sent by post in 2003; and how many were returned undelivered by the post office. [147475]

  Mr. Pond
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member with the information requested.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Michael Weir:

  In reply to your recent Parliamentary questions about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.

  You asked the following questions:

  how many absent parents have subsequently been assessed for a change in circumstances by the Child Support Agency after failing to respond to a request for details of change of circumstances by post;

  what procedure is followed by the Child Support Agency to determine the accuracy of address information on absent parents when they receive no response to postal requests for information on change of circumstances;

  what recent discussions he has had with the Child Support Agency on procedures for contacting absent parents to ascertain changes in circumstances;

  how many requests to absent parents by the Child Support Agency for details of change of circumstances were sent by post in 2003; and how many were returned undelivered by the post office.

  The Agency does not collect information about volumes of post issued or returned undelivered. If we have not received a response to postal requests for information and all other avenues for obtaining it have been exhausted, the case is referred to the Agency Inspectors for a visit to obtain this information. The Secretary of State and the Chief Executive of the Agency meet regularly to discuss all aspects of Agency business.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many Child Support Agency cases are now operating on the new formula for calculation of maintenance payments; [147994]

  (2) how many Child Support Agency cases continue to operate on the original formula for calculation of maintenance payments. [147995]

  Mr. Pond
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member with the information requested.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. James Plaskitt:

  In reply to your recent Parliamentary questions about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.

  You asked the following questions:

  how many CSA cases are now operating on the new formula for calculation of maintenance payments. and

  how many CSA cases continue to operate on the original formula for calculation of maintenance payments.

  Regular reports on the progress of child support reform are made to the House. The most recent of these covered the period to 30 September. As of September there were 30,528 cases operating on the new formula and 882,800 cases operating on the original formula.

  I hope this is helpful.
  840W
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) when he will begin the process of migrating existing cases to the new formula for calculation of maintenance payments; [147996]

  (2) what criteria he will apply to the prioritisation of cases for migration to the new formula for calculation of maintenance payments; [147997]

  (3) how long he expects the process of migration of cases to the new formula for calculation of maintenance payments to take. [147998]

  Mr. Pond
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) on 18 December 2003.Official Report, column 1092W.

  Plans for transferring the old scheme caseload to the new scheme have yet to be finalised.

  Departmental Pay
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost is of the departmental pay bill increase for 2003–04. [147515]

  Maria Eagle
  Negotiations for the 2003–04 pay award are still ongoing. Subject to acceptance of the current pay offer, the in-year 2003–04 pay bill for the department will increase by around £120 million. This represents a percentage increase of 3.7 per cent.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will reply to the letter to him dated 6 October 2003 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. V. Ilyas. [147613]

  Mr. Mullin
  I apologise to my right hon. Friend for not having replied to his letter of 6 October 2003 to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

  The Foreign Secretary will write to him shortly.

  Eritrea
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of relations between Eritrea and Ethiopia. [147527]

  Mr. Mullin
  Relations between Ethiopia and Eritrea are tense. We are urging both parties to take forward the Algiers Agreement which ended the war, implement the final and binding Boundary Commission decision, and to engage in dialogue on all of the issues separating the two countries. I am visiting Eritrea and Ethiopia from 13–19 January 2004, and will press these points.

  Gambia
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on(a) the arrest of Gambia's Information Minister, Yankuba Touray, by President Jammeh's

  841W
  forces and (b) the series of arrests of senior governmental officials, civil servants and businessmen in the last seven weeks. [147677]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Gambia's Secretary of State for Information. Communication and Technology, Mr. Yankuba Touray, was relieved of his official duties on 16 December 2003. He was not arrested.

  A number of other Government officials and businessmen have been arrested in recent weeks, largely in connection with alleged misappropriation or currency irregularities. Those concerned have been arrested, detained, charged or released in accordance with local law. The majority leader of the National Assembly has, separately, been held in custody since 26 December 2003 on matters relating to national security.

  We are following these developments closely. We welcome the Gambian Government's determination to tackle corruption. We are encouraging them to continue to ensure full respect for human rights and the rule of law.

  Sudan
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of the Sudan about the recent disturbances at Khartoum University. [148303]

  Mr. Mullin
  We discuss human rights issues on a regular basis with the Government of Sudan, both bilaterally and as part of the EU-Sudan dialogue. As we understand it, the recent disturbances at Khartoum University did not directly result in any arrests or detentions, and we therefore see no reason to raise the matter but we will keep the situation under review.

  Zimbabwe
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the security situation in Zimbabwe in respect of British citizens travelling to Zimbabwe; and if he will make a statement. [147209]

  Mr. Mullin
  We keep the security situation in Zimbabwe under constant review. Our travel advice available on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website at: www.fco.gov.uk spells out the current situation and is regularly updated to reflect any developments which might affect the safety of British citizens travelling to Zimbabwe.

  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the England and Wales Cricket Board about the England cricket team's proposed tour of Zimbabwe in respect of players' and supporters' safety. [147210]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) and the England and Wales Cricket Board officials are in close contact. The FCO's advice to visitors to Zimbabwe regarding safety and security is on our website at: www.fco.gov.uk This advice is kept under constant review. The decision whether to tour Zimbabwe this year rests with the ECB.
  842W
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the situation in Zimbabwe. [147211]

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the situation in Zimbabwe. [147525]

  Mr. Mullin
  The situation in Zimbabwe continues to deteriorate. 5.5 million people need food aid. The economy continues to collapse; inflation is at 620 per cent. Political violence continues. The Government of Zimbabwe continue to restrict press freedoms. We have made clear our condemnation of the present situation. We will continue to help feed Zimbabwe's starving people and promote a return to democratic governance and the rule of law.

  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the United Kingdom's ambassador in Harare about the situation in Zimbabwe; and if he will make a statement. [147212]

  Mr. Mullin
  I receive regular reports on Zimbabwe from our ambassador in Harare. The situation remains grim. We will continue to do all we can to prevent Zimbabweans starving and to secure a return to democratic governance.

  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet the Zimbabwean ambassador to discuss political reform in Zimbabwe. [147213]

  Mr. Mullin
  I have no plans to meet the Zimbabwean ambassador. We maintain diplomatic relations with Zimbabwe and Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials have occasional contact with his staff. The Government of Zimbabwe are fully aware of our views on the need for a return to democratic governance and the rule of law in Zimbabwe.

  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Chairman of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Committee on Zimbabwe about encouraging democratic reform in the country. [147214]

  Mr. Mullin
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met with the Prime Minister of Jamaica. Chair of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Committee on Zimbabwe, at CHOGM in December 2003. Commonwealth leaders agreed that Zimbabwe's suspension from the Councils of the Commonwealth should be maintained, and asked President Obansanjo of Nigeria, and the Commonwealth Secretary General, to encourage and facilitate progress and the return of Zimbabwe to the Commonwealth.

  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on the conditions for the re-admission of Zimbabwe to the Commonwealth; and if he will make a statement. [147215]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Zimbabwe Government withdrew Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth. Her re-admission would require a decision by consensus of the current
  843W
  members. We expect all members of the Commonwealth to adhere to the Harare principles of democratic government, the rule of law and respect for human rights.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received on Mr. Robert Mugabe's continuing tenure of an honorary knighthood; and if he will take steps to strip him of the knighthood. [148256]

  Mr Mullin
  Mugabe's knighthood was conferred in 1994 under the previous Government. Its removal is not our immediate priority, although we are keeping the matter under review. Our present priorities for Zimbabwe are feeding the hungry and working with our international partners to bring about the restoration of good governance and the rule of law.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Broadband
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action the Department is taking to ensure that broadband is made available more widely to the rural community. [147915]

  Mr. Timms
  In England, the Broadband Aggregation Project will make sure that the £1 billion Government spend on broadband connectivity for the public sector between 2003 and 2006 will offer the best value for money and widen availability to surrounding communities.

  DTI is working with the Devolved Administrations and Regional Development Agencies to extend the availability of broadband still further. We have given them £30 million for pilot schemes to extend the availability of broadband in areas not currently served by the market.

  A joint DTI/Defra Rural Broadband Team has been set up specifically to address the issue of availability of broadband in rural areas. It is working to support local community action to secure affordable access to broadband, to ensure rural communities derive the maximum benefit from the deployment of broadband and promote rural access and take up of broadband. Promoting partnerships between the telecommunications industry, government agencies and community organizations, our aim is that every community in the country should have access to broadband by the end of next year.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Totnes dated 19 November 2003 enclosing one from Mr. Christopher Martin-Gathern of Buckfastleigh about identity fraud. [148057]
  844W
  Ms Hewitt
  My office has no record of receiving the letter from the hon. Member. However, I should point out that identity fraud is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

  Miners' Compensation
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether compensation payments to be made for eligible estate claims for former miners for(a) chronic bronchitis and emphysema and (b) vibration white finger are being processed. [146112]

  Nigel Griffiths
  With regard to respiratory disease, the Department's priority is to settle claims from the eldest and sickest living miners and their widows. Estate claims are a lower priority and are being processed in accordance with the prioritisation process, agreed with the claimants' solicitors. They are processed when there are no higher priority claims to assess.

  On vibration white finger (VWF) claims, where IRISC have received the necessary medical report and confirmation of the claimant's employment history, families of deceased miners are having their claims processed along with those from living miners.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) when she expects the last compensation payments to be made for eligible estate claims for former miners for(a) chronic bronchitis and emphysema and (b) vibration white finger; [146113]

  (2) when she expects the last compensation payments to be made to (a) former miners and (b) widows of former miners for (i) chronic bronchitis and emphysema and (ii) vibration white finger. [146117]

  Nigel Griffiths
  It is very difficult to give such estimates for either scheme.

  The Vibration White Finger (VWF) scheme has closed but claims can only be processed when all relevant documentation has been received from claimants. Estates claims are being processed alongside live claims where supporting documentation is available, we expect that the greater part of general damages claims will be made offers by the end of 2005. Compensation for services will extend beyond that.

  The respiratory disease scheme is still open until 31 March 2004 and claims are currently coming in around 8,000 a week, of which around 5,000 are deceased claims (both widows and estates claims). The speed of processing claims will depend, among other things, on how quickly documentation is received from claimants after initial registration. Claims are processed in priority order, as agreed with miners' solicitors and estate claims come behind live individual claims.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the number of claims for(a) vibration white finger and (b) respiratory disease for (i) former miners, (ii) widows of former miners and (iii) other eligible estate claims for former miners in (A) the UK, (B) England, (C) Scotland and (D) Wales. [146114]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Vibration White Finger (VWF) scheme is now closed.
  845W
  The figures for VWF are:

  Live claims received (scheme closed 31 October 2002)

  Widows/estate claims received (scheme closed 31 January 2003)

  UK

  150,183

  19,361

  England

  122,236

  14,899

  Scotland

  9,625

  1,857

  Wales

  18,322

  2,605

  The respiratory disease scheme closes at the end of March 2004. It is difficult to make estimates of final numbers as claims are currently coming in at around 8,000 per week. Some 5,000 of which are deceased claims.

  As of 21 December 2003 the figures for respiratory disease are:

  Live claims as of 21 December 2003

  Widows/estate claims as of 21 December 2003

  UK

  179,775

  200,033

  England

  139,008

  119,248

  Scotland

  13,679

  15,351

  Wales

  27,088

  38,781

  Figures are not separately available for estate claims received. The Department's claim handlers. IRISC, register claims from both widows and estates as deceased.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many chronic obstructive pulmonary disease compensation claims have been registered, broken down by coalfield area; how many live claimants there are; and how many(a) widows and (b) estates are claiming. [146115]

  Nigel Griffiths
  As of 21 December 2003 the figures are:

  COPD

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Live claims

  139,008

  12,489

  26,699

  Deceased claims (widow/estate)

  145,911

  14,556

  38,156

  Regional statistics by coalfield area can be found on the Department's website—www.dti.gov.uk/coalhealth. The registration figures for deceased cases are not split between widows and estates.

  Nuclear Energy
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the Operation of Euratom Safeguards in 2002, Com (2003) 764 Final, in respect of its application to United Kingdom nuclear facilities and materials. [147623]

  Nigel Griffiths
  An explanatory memorandum (16077/03) covering the Commission report on the operation of Euratom Safeguards during 2002 has been submitted to Parliament. In the report the Commission notes that its overall conclusion from activities during 2002 was that 846W
  no evidence was found to suggest that nuclear materials were diverted from their intended uses. Nor was any evidence found to suggest non-compliance with provisions relating to particular safeguards provisions assumed by the Community under agreements concluded with third states. The report includes comments on a number of UK installations; these comments are generally positive. Discrepancies that arose at some UK reactors (Bradwell, Sizewell A and Wylfa) were followed-up and, after consultation with the operator involved, satisfactorily resolved. The Commission acknowledges that the operator had taken steps to correct the discrepancy and prevent its recurrence.

  Oil-fired Appliances
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will put in place a system of compulsory registration for installers and maintainers of oil-fired domestic central heating similar to the CORGI scheme for installers and maintainers of domestic gas appliances. [143014]

  Mr. Timms
  I have no plans to do so.

  Post Office Closures
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will urge the Post Office to re-examine the case of the closure of(a) Stock Road sub-post office, Billericay, Essex and (b) Barn Hall Post Office, Wickford, Essex, following the representations of the hon. Member for Billericay to the Post Office and Postwatch. [148145]

  Mr. Timms
  Following public consultation, final decisions on post office closure proposals under the urban reinvention programme are an operational matter for Post Office Ltd., in the light of advice from Postwatch and other consultation responses.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the grants to investment projects made under regional selective assistance in 2003–04, stating for each(a) the amount of the award, (b) the region, (c) the type of project and (d) the justification for the award; and what amounts were allocated in each year since 1997. [147795]

  Jacqui Smith
  For reasons of commercial confidentiality details of individual grants offered are generally only published once the first payment of grant has been made. Publication is limited to offers of £75,000 or more and details can be found in the January, April, July and October editions of Labour Market Tends.

  Aggregate numbers of regions and sectors are published in the Industrial Development Act Annual Report, which is laid in Parliament about three months after the end of the reporting period.

  Technology Transfer Agreements
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on technology transfer agreements. [147860]
  847W
  Ms Hewitt
  My Department promotes the transfer of technology between many organisations in the UK and between British and overseas organisations. Our aim is to improve the productivity and competitiveness of British businesses along the lines we have set out in the recent Innovation Report "Competing in the global economy: the innovation challenge".

  Although my Department assists the process of technology transfer through business support products such as Knowledge Transfer Partnerships, the vast majority of technology transfer agreements are arranged privately. I welcome the considerable expansion of technology and knowledge transfer in the UK that has occurred in recent years, largely as a result of innovative programmes such as the Higher Education Innovation Fund, that have seeded the idea of spin-out firms or other exploitation of science and technology in the minds of our researchers and technologists in academia and business.

HEALTH

  Audiology
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what improvements he expects choice in the NHS will have for deaf people(a) in arranging an appointment and (b) in communicating with their doctor. [147696]

  Dr. Ladyman
  "Building on the Best: Choice", Responsiveness and Equity in the NHS draws out the main themes that emerged from our recent consultation on what changes would do most to improve the experience of health care for patients, users and carers. Building on the Best confirms that the commitment in the NHS Plan for a national interpreting and translation service has been initiated by NHS Direct. The interpretation component will include a requirement to provide services for people who use British Sign Language. Over time, this contract will be available to help deaf people arrange appointments and communicate with their doctors.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what information his Department collects in respect of waiting times for audiology services; [147751]

  (2) which NHS trusts have entered into partnership agreements with private hearing aid dispensers for (a) 2003–04 and (b) 2004–05. [147752]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Department does not collect centrally information about waiting times for non-consultant led specialities such as audiology, nor about contracts entered into by local services.

  The national framework agreement awarded to David Ormerod Hearing Centres and Ultravox Holdings plc in October 2003 will provide a service to patients on the same basis as the national health service, which remains responsible for the patients' care. It has so far involved sites in Shrewsbury, Leeds, Bradford, Bath, Bournemouth and East Cheshire. This partnership agreement is now being rolled out nationally.

  Cannabis Use (Schizophrenia)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has commissioned into cannabis use and schizophrenia. [148275]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Department of Health-funded research completed last year recognised that, while a causative link between early cannabis use and later development of schizophrenia and depression is not conclusively proven, recent epidemiological research has shown a stronger association than was previously evident. Although we have not commissioned further specific research into cannabis and schizophrenia, the Department monitors research is this area and has a range of expert advisers to inform policy.

  Carbon Monoxide Poisoning
  Jon Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department has taken to improve the understanding among health professionals of the symptoms and effects of carbon monoxide poisoning. [147460]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  On 22 February 2002, the Chief Medical Officer (CMO), Professor Sir Liam Donaldson and the Chief Nursing Officer, Sarah Mullally, published an updated letter, "Carbon Monoxide: the forgotten Killer". The letter pulled together the most current information available on carbon monoxide and was forwarded to community nurses, midwives, health visitors and general practitioners, professionals who are most likely to be aware of patients' living conditions and so identify those at increased risk. This letter was originally published on 7 September 1998.

  Similarly, the quarterly "CMO Update" has included several reminders to GPs on the importance of diagnosis of carbon monoxide poisoning since 1998. Officials also issued a video in March 2002, prepared for the Health and Safety Executive, to all GP surgeries. The video highlights the main symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning, as well as advising GPs on how to diagnose possible cases of carbon monoxide poisoning.

  Care Homes
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether it is appropriate for an independent review panel to take into account, in making their decisions on health care funding for people living in care homes,(a) the job status of the carers and (b) the classification of the home in which the care is received. [147555]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Eligibility for fully funded national health service continuing care is decided upon the patient's needs. When considering eligibility for fully funded NHS continuing care, and during any reviews of such decisions, the job status of any carers should make no difference to the decision. The care the patient receives and the setting in which it is provided should be based entirely on the patient's needs.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review the eligibility criteria of Essex Strategic Health Authority for health care funding for people living in residential care homes. [147556]
  849W
  Dr. Ladyman
  Establishing and reviewing eligibility criteria for national health service fully funded continuing care is a responsibility of the strategic health authority, which will have taken legal advice when establishing the criteria.

  Chemical Regulation
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the forthcoming EU Chemical Regulation; and if he will make a statement. [147232]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department has been consulted on the Government Position Statement on the new European Union chemicals strategy that was published in December 2002 and on the Government's response to the European Commission's internet consultation on the workability of its draft proposal in June last year.

  Officials from the Department continue to be involved in the cross-Government steering committee that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has established on this issue.

  Colloidal Silver
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of colloidal silver as a treatment for MRSA and other hospital-acquired infections. [146718]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We are not aware of any peer-reviewed or clinical trial evidence that colloidal silver is an effective treatment for methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) or other hospital-acquired infections. Colloidal silver has antibacterial properties, but it is not used as an alternative to antibiotics because of its toxicity when taken internally.

  Delayed Discharges
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what targets were set for delayed discharge of patients aged 75 years and over for each quarter in each year since 1997. [147305]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Performance targets for the delayed discharge of patients aged 75 years and over occupying an acute bed have been set on an annual basis, rather than a quarterly target, since 2000–01. Each of these targets was set out in the relevant year's Planning and Priorities Framework, published by the Department of Health.

  These targets are shown in the table.

  Percentage

  2000–01

  11

  2001–02

  10

  2002–03

  9

  There was no numerical target set for 2003–04; the NHS Plan target is to end "widespread bed blocking".
  850W
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many delayed discharges of patients aged 75 years and over there were in each quarter in each year since 1997. [147306]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information requested is shown in the table and is also available in the Library.

  Numbers of adult patients over 75 in acute beds with delayed discharge—quarterly figures 1997–2003

  Quarter

  Number of patients

  September 2003

  2,988

  June 2003

  3,100

  March 2003

  3,031

  December 2002

  3,502

  September 2002

  4,147

  June 2002

  1—

  March 2002

  4,691

  December 2001

  5,117

  September 2001

  5,673

  June 2001

  5,396

  March 2001

  5,938

  December 2000

  5,801

  September 2000

  5,958

  June 2000

  5,538

  March 2000

  5,431

  December 1999

  5,419

  September 1999

  5,552

  June 1999

  5,276

  March 1999

  5,891

  December 1998

  5,772

  September 1998

  6,219

  June 1998

  6,180

  March 1998

  6,265

  December 1997

  6,451

  September 1997

  6,854

  1No date

  Note:

  Reliable data was not available for over 75s for this quarter, because of structural changes resulting from Shifting the Balance of Power. The figure for all adults was 4,924.

  Departmental Relocation
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment his Department has made of the benefits of relocation of staff to North Staffordshire; and if he will make a statement; [146870]

  (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; [146886]

  (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; [146900]

  (4) what plans he has to establish procedures for assessing the impact of possible relocation of staff in the Department to his regions; and if he will make a statement. [146921]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, on 12 January 2004,Official Report, column 516W.

  Diabetes
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 8 December 2003,Official Report, column 310W, on diabetes, what bodies were specifically advised of the 2002 Diabetes Consultation Exercise; what the duration was of the exercise; how it was researched; how many responses the Department received; what its terms of reference were; how the replies were evaluated: and what steps were taken to publish the findings. [147743]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  A general public consultation on the broad future research agenda for diabetes was undertaken to support the joint Department of Health and Medical Research Council review of current and future research in diabetes. The remit of the research advisory committee that conducted the review was to consider all research on diabetes in the United Kingdom in the international context, with a view to identifying opportunities for new research, options for strengthening research, and areas where research could support clinical practice, public health and the national service framework for diabetes.

  Consultation was conducted mainly electronically and continued for three months. A total of 108 submissions were received and evaluated. The review was published in October 2002. A copy is available in the Library. Full details of the process of consultation and the results are set out in Annex 4 of the Review.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what basis the Department decided during the joint Department of Health and Medical Research Council's review in 2002 of current and future research on diabetes not to make a comparison of clinical outcomes, mortality and complications between the use of animal insulin and human insulin. [148049]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department of Health and the Medical Research Council's review of current and future research on diabetes identified the principal opportunities for research across the whole field from molecular biology to health services research, including clinical research. The complications of diabetes which give rise to morbidity and to premature mortality were the subject of particular consideration by the members of the advisory committee and of a specific sub-group. A major determinant of the development of these complications in Type 1 diabetes is the control of the blood glucose by self-injection of insulin. The review identified research into the most effective use of existing and new insulin's, better insulin delivery systems, and training in self-management as fundamental to good control in these patients. Much research is being done in these areas. The Committee members did not consider, nor was it suggested to them, that the minor differences in the effects on humans of insulin from different species might contribute to differential rates of development of the complications of diabetes.

  Disease Screening
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that all(a) economic migrants, (b) asylum seekers and (c) those with work permits receive a health screen for (i) hepatitis B, (ii) hepatitis C,
  852W
  (iii) tuberculosis and (iv) HIV/AIDS before they are admitted to the United Kingdom; and what the current policy is. [144006]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 15 December 2003]: The Cabinet Office is currently co-ordinating work between relevant Government Departments, including the Department of Health, to review imported infections and immigration. The review aims to establish the facts about the impact of immigration on public health and national health service expenditure, consider all relevant issues including health screening and propose solutions should action be required. It is on-going and no decisions have been taken yet.

  Asylum seekers are offered health assessments and screening for tuberculosis (TB) at the Home Office induction centre in East Kent (and will be offered them at other induction centres as they are rolled out). Testing for HIV is offered as part of the health assessment on request or where medical history indicates they have been at risk. The aims of the health assessment are to identify the immediate healthcare needs of the asylum seeker and to protect public health. Imposing mandatory health screening on asylum seekers would breach their human rights and would be contrary to the 1951 Refugee Convention.

  In relation to other migrants, long-standing policy is that any person subject to immigration control who either mentions health or medical treatment as a reason for coming to the United Kingdom, or appears unwell; or is seeking leave to enter the UK for six months or more and is at high risk of having been exposed to TB should be referred by the immigration officer to a medical inspector. These arrangements are governed by Schedule 2 of the Immigration Act 1971 and the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (HC 395).

  Drugs Treatment
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the variance in criminal offending between patients using the Mapperley Hospital Formula of prescribing and National Treatment Agency for Substance Abuse-recommended methadone dosages and use. [147760]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 13 January 2004]: Departmental officials are aware of the Mapperley Hospital Formula and can confirm that this is fully in line with Department of Health and National Treatment Agency guidance. Drug treatment is one of a number of factors shown to impact on criminal offending. In reflecting current guidance, we would expect the Mapperley Hospital Formula to make a comparable contribution in other areas of the country.

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the Mapperley Hospital Formula for prescribing for drug addiction. [147761]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 13 January 2004]: The Mapperley Hospital Formula uses an option that drug specialists have shown to be effective over many years and is fully in line with Department of Health and National Treatment Agency guidance.

  Emergency Readmissions
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what targets were set for 28-day emergency readmissions of people aged 75 and over in each quarter since 1997. [147307]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The target for emergency re-admissions within 28 days of discharge has always been to retain zero growth in the rate, year on year. Up to 2001–02, the target related to emergency re-admissions for those aged over 75 only. Since then, the target has related to patients of all ages.

  Ethnicity
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effect of a person's ethnicity on their access to public services within the responsibilities of his Department. [143577]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department is committed to transforming the health and social care system so that it produces faster, fairer services with equity of access for all.

  The most extensive survey on the health of minority ethnic groups ever carried out in England was published in February 2001. The 1999 "Health Survey for England" identified significant health inequalities among people from black and minority ethnic communities and found higher rates of general practitioner consultations for minority ethnic groups.

  The Department recognises that, as the frequent gateway to other national health service services, access to general practice services for all populations is of primary importance. The 2002 NHS Patient's Survey, based on a sample obtained from the electoral register and with 145,000 responses, found that at least 99 per cent. of people from each ethnic group were registered with a GP.

  Since 2003, these surveys have been carried out by individual NHS organisations but are collated and analysed at the national level by the Commission for Health Improvement (CHI).

  Equality of access is also central to the Department's policy on social services and the Personal Social Services Performance Assessment Framework indicators provide statistical overview of social services performance in key areas including fair access.

  The Department has made a commitment to the collection of ethnic origin information using the 2001 Census categories and has guidance in place to ensure that consideration of the collection of relevant race equality information is part of the process of establishing all new central data sets.

  The creation of more equal access for black and minority ethnic people is an integral and vital aspect of the Department's programme of investment and reform. "Building on the Best, Choice Responsiveness and Equity in the NHS", December 2003, aims to promote equality of access to health care for all and sets the challenge of providing high quality, accessible services that meet the individual needs of an increasingly
  854W
  diverse population while also being underpinned by the values of fairness and equity. Copies are available in the Library.

  Euro
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in how many speeches during 2003 he declared support for the Government's policy on the euro. [147297]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, on 12 January 2004,Official Report, columns 516–17W.

  Health Promotion England
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the(a) budget allocation and (b) actual spending of Health Promotion England for each year since 2000. [144786]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The budget allocation and actual spend for Health Promotion England for each year since 2000 is shown in the table.

  £million

  Budget

  Actual spend

  2000–01

  5.683

  5.232

  2001–02

  6.265

  6.061

  Health Services (Lancashire)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much earmarked funding has been provided to(a) Lancashire county council and (b) district councils in Lancashire for (i) older people's services and (ii) adults with learning disabilities in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [147855]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department does not provide earmarked funds to county councils for services for older people or for adults with learning disabilities. Lancashire county council decides how much to make available for these services from the overall amount provided for adult services by the Department. Lancashire county council will receive a £14 million, or 7.4 per cent., increase for adult personal social services in 2004–05.

  Hospital-acquired Infections
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the extra bed days caused by extended stays in UK hospitals due to hospital acquired infections in each of the last six years, broken down by hospital trust. [144147]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  These data are not available, but a 1994–95 study1 suggested that patients who acquire an infection in hospital remain in hospital on average an extra 11 days.

  1 The Socio-economic Burden of Hospital Acquired Infection—Public Health Laboratory Service, 1999, also available at: www.doh.gov.uk/haicosts.htm

  Influenza Vaccine
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the take-up rates for influenza vaccine were as at 1 December 2003(a) in England and (b) broken down by (i) primary care trust and (ii) strategic health authority. [147184]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The overall uptake of flu vaccine in England in those aged 65 and over as at 1 December 2003 was 67.9 per cent. A breakdown by strategic health authority and primary care trust has been placed in the Library.

  Landfill Sites
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies have been carried out into the incidence of birth defects within the proximity of landfill sites. [147233]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 12 January 2004]: I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave him on 14 January 2004, Official Report, column 798W.

  Mental Health Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent on adult mental health services in each year since 1997–98; what the projected expenditure is in financial year 2003–04; if he will provide the figures in(a) cash terms and (b) Retail Price Index-adjusted terms using 1997–98 as a baseline; and if he will make a statement on the method used for compiling the figures. [143715]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The table sets out the mental health services expenditure on patients aged 16 or over since 1997–98.

  £million

  Expenditure

  RPI-adjusted expenditure

  1997–98

  2,849

  2,849

  1998–99

  3,011

  2,894

  1999–2000

  3,188

  3,016

  2000–01

  3,729

  3,427

  2001–02

  4,006

  3,617

  It is not possible to estimate the expenditure for mental health services for 2002–03 and 2003–04 until the national health service accounts for these years are finalised, at the end of January 2004 and 2005 respectively.

  The figures are taken from the Expenditure Per Head of Population (EPHoP) analysis of healthcare spend. EPHoP measures activity from in-patients, out-patients and community based patients against expenditure taken from the hospital and community health service programme budget. The programme budget is compiled using NHS accounts—a combination of finance returns from strategic health authorities, NHS trusts, primary care trusts and the strategic health authority summarisation schedules.

  Activity data from a range of sources, for example hospital episode statistics, Körner community returns, the Living in Britain survey, etc. are used to distribute
  856W
  the expenditure figures for each sector—mental health, acute services, etc. proportionally across the whole population.

  Using the combination of expenditure and activity figures, the treatment cost is for each person within each age group and for each type of activity is calculated.

  Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were waiting for in-patient treatment in the Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust area at the latest date for which figures are available; and how many people have been waiting over 12 months for in-patient treatment. [147989]

  Dr. Ladyman
  As of 31 October 2003, 8,040 patients were waiting for elective in-patient admission, and no patients were waiting over 12 months. The source of this data is the Department of Health monthly monitoring.

  Patients Forums
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 5 January 2004,Official Report, columns 203–04W, on patients forums, how many applications were made for membership of each patients forum; and how many members each has. [147951]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information on applications received for each patients forum is not available because some applicants expressed multiple preferences or no preference for a particular forum. The total number of applicants at 9 January, the latest figures, was 5,776. At the same date, 549 of the 572 forums had seven or more volunteers.

  Prostate Cancer
  Jon Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures his Department is taking with(a) the NHS and (b) voluntary organisations to tackle prostate cancer. [147461]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In September 2000, the Government published the national health service prostate cancer programme, which set out what was known about prostate cancer and established a framework for future action. Good progress has been made on prostate cancer since the programme was published.

  Over 98 per cent. of patients with suspected urological cancers, including prostate, were seen for their first outpatient appointment within two weeks of their general practitioner referral between July and September 2003.

  There has been a 38 per cent. increase in the number of consultant urologists since 1997; from 343 to 473

  We have increased funding for research into prostate cancer twenty-fold since 1999–2000, which means in 2003–04, the Department is directly funding £4.2 million of research into prostate cancer.

  We have provided Section 64 funding to the Prostate Cancer Charity to increase public awareness of prostate cancer, and funded the Database of Individual Patient Experiences in prostate cancer.
  857W
  In the summer of 2001, we launched the prostate cancer risk management programme. This programme was established to ensure that men who are considering a prostate specific antigen (PSA) test for prostate cancer are given information concerning the benefits, limitations and risks associated with receiving a test. As part of this programme, an evidence based pack of materials has been sent to all general practitioners in England to help them counsel men in making an informed choice about the PSA test.

  Much has been achieved on prostate cancer but we recognise that there is still much to be done. That is why we welcomed the launch of the Prostate Cancer Charter for Action on 29 January 2003 and set up the Prostate Cancer Advisory Group (PCAG) to ensure better collaboration and communication between the charter members and Government. PCAG is already working hard and is taking forward work on information for prostate cancer patients, public awareness, prostate cancer treatment and a national prostate cancer resource website.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has commissioned on the need for more residential care places for people below pensionable age. [147216]

  Dr. Ladyman
  It is up to local councils to determine the range of care options, including residential care places for people below pensionable age, that are needed locally. This information should then inform their commissioning strategies and decisions.

  The vast majority of people prefer to receive care at home rather than enter residential care.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many residential care homes cater for people only below pensionable age; and how many places this represents in total. [147217]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The number of residential care homes catering primarily for 18 to 64-year-olds in 2001 was 11,400 and the number of places was 81,100. This represents 24 per cent. of all places in residential care homes.

  Figures for later years have been collected by the National Care Standards Commission, but comparable details are not available.

  Security Passes
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many security passes have been reported(a) lost and (b) stolen by staff in departmental agencies in the last 12 months. [147906]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on 12 January 2004,Official Report, column 622W.

  Staff Costs
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list salaries and wages costs for(a) general
  858W
  and senior managers, (b) nurses and midwives and (c) administrative and clerical staff for (i) 2002–03 and (ii) 2003–04, broken down by NHS trust. [146053]

  Mr. Hutton
  Provisional information for 2002–03, which remains subject to standard checks, has been placed in the Library.

  Information for 2003–04 will not be available until after the financial year has ended.

  Voluntary Euthanasia Society
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many times the Government have consulted the Voluntary Euthanasia Society on end of life decision making since 1997, and on what issues. [146480]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  We are not aware of any formal consultation with the Voluntary Euthanasia Society regarding end of life decision-making since 1997. The Government have been in dialogue with a range of groups, including the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, particularly during the preparation of a series of leaflets on making decisions on behalf of mentally incapacitated adults and continue to listen carefully to arguments put forward by all sides.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Dredging
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much income has been raised by the Crown Estates from dredging licences issued in respect of(a) all dredging offshore and (b) dredging of sites off the Norfolk coast, broken down by individual dredging licence, in (i) 2002 and (ii) 2003; and if he will make a statement. [147546]

  Keith Hill
  While my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is responsible for determining the environmental consents which are needed to support marine dredging licences issued by the Crown Estate, he has no responsibility for the Crown Estate itself or for its royalty revenues from marine minerals dredging.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 30 October 2003, Official Report, column 334W, which included information from the Crown Estate that stated that its royalty income for 2002 from marine minerals dredging off the Norfolk coast was £5.29 million. The Crown Estate has now informed me that its total royalty income for 2002 from all offshore marine minerals dredging was £13.02 million. Comparable figures for 2003 are not yet available. The Crown Estate has also advised me that its policy is to release financial details of individual licences or leases only with the agreement of the companies involved because the information can be commercially sensitive.

  Information about marine dredging licences and licensees can be obtained from the Crown Estate website at www.crownestate.co.uk

  Failed House Sales
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister by what percentage he estimates the number of failed
  859W
  housing market transactions will fall as a consequence of the proposed introduction of homebuyers packs. [148302]

  Yvette Cooper
  Research carried out on behalf of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has indicated that under the present home buying and selling process 28 per cent. of transactions fail after terms have been agreed, and that this costs consumers some £350 million each year in wasted expenditure.

  It is not possible to estimate accurately at this time by how much this failure rate will reduce following the introduction of home information packs. In evidence to the Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Committee an estate agent who has operated home information packs since 1996 said that in her agency the failure rate where homes are marketed with a pack is 3 per cent. compared to 26 per cent. where homes are marketed without a pack.

  This reduction is due to information that could threaten or delay the transaction (e.g. a survey that both seller and buyer can rely on) being made available at the beginning of the process.

  Firefighters
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what estimate he has made of the job losses in(a) Suffolk and (b) East Anglia which will result from the regionalisation of the Fire Service; [146522]

  (2) what reduction in the number of managerial jobs he expects to result from the regionalisation of the Fire Service in East Anglia; [146523]

  (3) what (a) operational benefits and (b) other advantages to the people of East Suffolk he expects to accrue from his plans to regionalise the Fire Service; [146525]

  (4) what financial benefits to (a) the Treasury, (b) Suffolk county council, (c) taxpayers and (d) council taxpayers in Suffolk he expects to accrue from his plans to regionalise the Fire Service; [146526]

  (5) what discussions he has had with (a) retained and (b) full-time firefighters in Suffolk on his plans to regionalise the Fire Service; and what their advice was; [146527]

  (6) what community consultation he has held in Suffolk on his plans to regionalise the Fire Service; [146528]

  (7) what discussions he has had with the Suffolk Police Authority on his plans to regionalise the Fire Service; [146531]

  (8) what discussions he has had with Suffolk county council on his plans to regionalise the Fire Service; [146532]

  (9) whom he has consulted on the plans to regionalise Suffolk's Fire Service. [146533]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government are not proposing to regionalise the fire and rescue service in the East of England. Suffolk county council will continue to be responsible for the Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service. The White Paper (Cm 5808) made clear that only where 860W
  voters choose to have an Elected Regional Assembly will there be a change to the democratic accountability of the service.

  The Government's overriding objective is to save lives by doing more to prevent fires occurring in the first place. The White Paper also set out the government's expectation that existing fire authorities, including those in the East of England, would develop robust regional management arrangements to deliver the functions which are most efficiently and effectively performed at a regional level. Under these arrangements staff numbers in the East of England will continue to be a matter for the individual Fire and Rescue Authority employers concerned.

  Operationally, the benefits of the regional approach will be improved resilience to terrorism and to major incidents such as flooding, integrated modern control rooms with the latest technology and improved specialist fire investigation.

  Financially, procurement, training and human resource functions will all benefit from standardisation and pooling of resources and expertise. It is not possible to provide a meaningful breakdown of the respective benefits these savings will bring to central Government, individual citizens and localities, but all will benefit from a reduction in the £6.63 billion annual cost of fire to the economy in England and Wales.

  The Government are currently consulting on their draft National Framework for the Fire and Rescue Service. Those to whom the document has been sent include the Chairs of individual Fire Authorities, the Local Government Association and a wide range of bodies representing both retained and full time staff. Police authorities have not been specifically consulted, but comments from all stakeholders are invited by 12 March 2004.

  In addition, all aspects of fire modernisation are discussed when we meet interested parties from time-to-time in the course of our Ministerial duties. The Chief Fire Officer for Suffolk attended the Fire and Rescue Service seminar on 3 December 2003 addressed by the right hon. Nick Raynsford MP and Phil Hope MP, and officials from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister expect to visit the Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service shortly.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister under what powers he would implement the regionalisation of the Fire Service without the consent of Suffolk county council. [146524]

  Mr. Raynsford
  It is expected that the voluntary arrangements proposed in the White Paper "Our Fire and Rescue Service" will succeed. However, the Fire and Rescue Services Bill will strengthen and streamline the existing power in Section 6 of the Fire Services Act 1947 to combine Fire and Rescue Authorities, after consultation with the existing authorities and other persons affected.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what evidence he has received to support his proposal that the fire station in Orford would provide a swifter and more efficient service if controlled by the same centralised system as Rickmansworth; [146529]
  861W
  (2) what research relating to East Anglia he has commissioned to provide factual backing for his plans to regionalise the Fire Service. [146530]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government's conclusions about the benefits of a regional approach are set out in the White Paper "Our Fire and Rescue Service" (Cm 5808), and are informed by, a number of reviews of the service, culminating in the report of the Independent Review of the Fire Service published in December 2002. These reports are listed in the White Paper.

  The Mott MacDonald report on the "Future of Fire and Rescue Service Control Rooms in England and Wales", published in December 2003, concluded that the optimum solution to secure efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of fire and rescue service control rooms would be nine control rooms in England one matched to the areas of the Government Offices for the Regions. The Government accepts the conclusions of the Mott MacDonald report, and is consulting on implementation. Copies of the report and a related one by Her Majesty's Fire Service Inspectorate are available in the Library of the House.

  A recent report by Her Majesty's Fire Service Inspectorate concluded that local purchasing arrangements based on individual preferences are not the most efficient means of obtaining goods, services and equipment. I am placing copies in the Library. These documents, while not specific to East Anglia, are applicable to the area.

  Home Improvement Agencies
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress has been made on national coverage of home improvement agencies (HIAs); how this progress measures against the Government's targets for HIAs; and if he will make a statement. [148238]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has invited Supporting People administering authorities to bid for a proportion of the extra £2 million being made available from 1 April 2004 to restructure and to expand the Sector's current geographical coverage. Bids must be submitted to Foundations, the National Coordinating Body for Home Improvement Agencies, by 31 January 2004.

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he last met representatives of the mobile phone industry to discuss siting of phone masts. [148208]

  Keith Hill
  I have not held any meetings with representatives of the mobile phone industry to discuss siting of phone masts. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) will be meeting representatives of the Mobile Operators' Association and the five commercial network operators on 19 January.

  Somerset County Council
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much funding was provided to Somerset County Council in(a) 2001–02, (b) 2002–03 and (c) 2003–04. [145764]
  862W
  Mr. Raynsford
  The table gives details of revenue grants received by Somerset County Council as part of gross Aggregate External Finance (AEF) between 2001–02 to 2003–04.

  £000

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Revenue Support Grant

  117,071

  112,197

  140,412

  National Non-Domestic Rates

  120,178

  131,815

  133,669

  Specific Grants within AEF1

  48,090

  45,981

  64,472

  Total Central Government Support

  285,339

  289,993

  338,553

  1 Information on specific grants up until 2002–03 is taken from local authority outturn returns. For 2003–04, where outturn information is not yet available this is based on local authority budget returns.

  Note:

  The grants are on an unadjusted basis and may not be comparable between years, because transfers of function may have taken place.

TREASURY

  Child Trust Funds
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures his Department has taken to prevent investment companies offering child trust funds from offering reduced services to customers who do not invest the maximum sum permitted. [148666]

  Ruth Kelly
  Providers who want to offer child trust fund accounts will need to be approved by the Inland Revenue and will have to satisfy various conditions. All Child Trust Fund providers will be required to offer a stakeholder account. This will mean that a simple, low cost, accessible and risk-controlled account will be available for all. Full details of this and other conditions, such as the requirement for all children to receive annual statements, will be set out in the child trust fund regulations. We will publish draft regulations during the passage of the Child Trust Funds Bill, which is currently going through Parliament.

  Ethical Financial Policies
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assistance the Treasury offers local authorities in developing(a) ethical and (b) environmental (i) investment, (ii) banking and (iii) procurement policies. [145715]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), together with other Government Departments, offers assistance to local authorities in relation to these matters.

  The standards of ethical conduct expected from members of local authorities in all areas are laid down in a model code issued by ODPM in November 2001.

  Local authorities have wide discretion to determine policies on investment and banking. New guidelines on prudent investment practice will come into effect from 1 April 2004. These guidelines enable ethical and environmental considerations to be fully taken into account by local authorities.

  Guidance on Sustainable Procurement has been issued by The Office of Government Commerce and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

  Gift Aid
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make a statement on the withdrawal of Gift Aid from charitable membership; [147150]

  (2) how much he expects to raise from withdrawing Gift Aid from charitable membership; [147153]

  (3) what assessment he has made of whether charities are likely to close as a result of the withdrawal of Gift Aid from charitable membership; [147267]

  (4) what timescale he envisages for the withdrawal of Gift Aid from charitable membership; [147151]

  (5) what assessment he has made of the cost to charities of the withdrawal of Gift Aid from charitable membership. [147152]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 12 January 2004]: Gift Aid is designed to promote giving to charity by individuals. It has delivered significant benefits to all fundraising charities. Donations to charities using Gift Aid are subject to rules governing the level of benefit that a donor can receive from the charity in return for a gift. If a gift exceeds these limits then Gift Aid cannot be claimed on the gift. However, under a special exemption introduced in 1989 and imported into Gift Aid as part of a wider reform in 2000, certain heritage and conservation charities are able to claim Gift Aid on membership subscriptions in the same way as they were previously able to claim tax refunds under Deeds of Covenant. Deeds of Covenant lasted for at least three years, meaning that a donor was required to have an ongoing commitment to a charity, but Gift Aid can apply to one-off donations as well.

  A number of charities eligible for the special exemption are claiming Gift Aid tax refunds under so-called 'day membership' schemes. These schemes do not generate additional giving, but simply reclassify admission fees as donations on which Gift Aid is being claimed.

  The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the pre-Budget report (Cm 6042) that the Government will amend the Gift Aid legislation to ensure that the special exemption applies as it was originally intended and not to these 'day memberships'.

  This will mean that heritage and conservation charities will continue to benefit from the special exemption where a donor has an ongoing commitment to the charity, such as an annual membership, and these charities—like other fundraising charities—will continue to benefit from Gift Aid on other donations of money.

  No estimate is available of the amount of money being claimed by charities which are taking advantage of this. Charities are not required to differentiate on their Gift Aid claims the amounts they are claiming for 'day membership' income from other amounts they are claiming. However, the purpose of this measure is not to raise revenue but to maintain a level playing field for all charities. It is unfair that some charities are claiming Gift Aid payments on what is in effect an admission fee when most other charities cannot.
  864W
  We will work closely with those charities affected to ensure that the change operates as intended and that the impact on them is minimised. The Government intend to announce final details of the changes in this year's Budget and introduce legislation in the next Finance Bill.

  Iraq
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had(a) as part of the Paris Club, (b) with Gulf states and (c) with other states regarding the cancellation, reduction and rescheduling of Iraq's sovereign debt. [147530]

  John Healey
  The UK believes that Iraq's external debt is unsustainable and that creditors will need to agree a significant reduction through a clear multilateral process in order to restore Iraq to sustainability. This is likely to lead to the writing off the vast majority of Iraq's external debt. The UK would like to see this agreed by creditors before the end of 2004.

  The UK welcomed the success of the US Presidential Envoy, James A. Baker III, in creating a G7 consensus on the need for substantial debt reduction for Iraq in the Paris Club during 2004.

  The UK frequently discusses Iraq's debt problems with international partners and with international financial institutions, including discussions in the Paris Club, with the aim of broadening and deepening the emerging international consensus.

  Public Sector Pensions
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment his Department has made of the level of the Government's public sector pensions liability. [148317]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 14 January 2004,Official Report, column 816W.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the letter of 2 December 2003 from the Paymaster General to the hon. Member for Northavon, on tax credits compensation, how many claims for compensation were submitted to the Inland Revenue up to the end of September 2003; and what the(a) minimum and (b) maximum compensation payments were that were made. [147991]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood) and the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) on 19 November 2003,Official Report, column 1100W.

  Tax Returns (Self-Assessment)
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the investigation by the Inland Revenue and the e-Envoy into the breaches of confidentiality relating to self-assessment tax returns filed via the internet. [147634]
  865W
  Dawn Primarolo
  SA Online, the Inland Revenue tax return software was temporarily withdrawn on 27 May 2002 following reports from some customers that they had seen information relating to another person. The actual internet service for self assessment remained available to users of alternative tax return software.

  The Inland Revenue acted quickly to safeguard taxpayer information. They immediately withdrew the service and called in Qinetiq, an independent security company, as well as experts from the e-Envoy's office.

  After an extensive investigation Qinetiq and the experts from the Office of e-Envoy agreed that the Inland Revenue had
  identified the root cause of the problem; and
  implemented the necessary changes to ensure it does not occur again.

  There has been no repeat of this incident.

  Key findings were shared with the Office of E-envoy and other Government Departments.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the studies by the Inland Revenue into introducing new methods of payment of self-assessment liabilities. [147635]

  Dawn Primarolo
  IR is currently carrying out studies aimed at expanding the payment methods that are already on offer.Direct Debit—For customers who are interested in making regular payments on account in advance of their SA tax becoming due IR offers a limited service called Budget Payment Plan. A current study is looking to develop a national service that will extend the use of the Inland Revenue's Direct Debit systems.
  Debit card—A current study is looking at the feasibility of providing, a National system to enable all IR Local Recovery Offices to accept Debit card payments.
  Credit cards—Work on payment by credit card is on-going but there are many factors to consider before offering the facility to pay self-assessment debts by Credit card.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on current delays in processing self-assessment tax returns received by the Inland Revenue. [147636]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue have met their targets for capturing the information included in self-assessment tax returns every year since self assessment was introduced and fully expect to do so again this year.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of taxpayers filed their self-assessment tax returns by the due date in 2003; and if he will make a statement. [147645]

  Dawn Primarolo
  90.5 per cent. of self-assessment taxpayers filed their 2001–02 self assessment tax returns by the due date (31 January 2003).

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will change the inquiry window regarding self-assessment tax returns from running for 12 months from 31 January to 12 months from the date a return is received; and if he will make a statement. [147646]
  866W
  Dawn Primarolo
  There are no plans to change the self-assessment inquiry window to run for 12 months from the date a return is received.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many self-assessment tax returns have remained outstanding from each year since the system was introduced; and if he will make a statement. [147647]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Out of approximately nine million self-assessment returns issued annually, the number outstanding for each tax year as at the end of November 2003 was as shown in the following table:

  Return year

  Returns outstanding

  1997

  36,065

  1998

  55,357

  1999

  83,954

  2000

  136,984

  2001

  219,088

  2002

  389,939

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many taxpayers have filed their self-assessment tax returns via the internet in each year since this service became available; whether he expects that the 50 per cent. target for internet filing of self-assessment tax returns will be met by 2005; and if he will make a statement. [147648]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue received the following number of returns electronically in the following years:2000–01: The number of returns received electronically by the Inland Revenue was 336,127. 296,837 of these were received via the Electronic Lodgement Service and 39,290 via the Internet Service.
  2001–02: The number of returns received electronically by the Inland Revenue was 419,236. 343,009 of these were received via the Electronic Lodgement Service and 76,287 via the internet service.
  2002–03: The number of tax returns received electronically by the Inland Revenue was 705,690. 370,051 of these were received via the Electronic Lodgement Service and 335,639 via the Internet service.
  2003–04: The number of tax returns received electronically by the Inland Revenue at 9 January 2004 was 649,338. 209,515 of these were received via the Electronic Lodgement Service and 439,823 via the Internet service.

  The target for electronic filing of self-assessment tax returns is that 25 per cent. of all self-assessment returns will be received electronically by 5 April 2006. Electronically means by the Internet service or the Electronic Lodgement Service. The Inland Revenue is on course to meet this target.

  Taxation Adjustments
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the value was of adjustments in favour of taxpayers resulting from compliance cases processed by the Large Business Office of Inland Revenue in each year since 1997–98; and in which years these sums were included in the Large Business Office's total compliance performance reported in Inland Revenue annual reports. [147949]
  867W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The figures for the value of adjustments in favour of taxpayers as a result of LBO inquiries are:

  £ million

  1999–2000

  132

  2000–01

  75

  2001–02

  130

  2002–03

  209

  Data to provide this analysis is not available for earlier years.

  The amounts for 1999–2000 to 2001–02 were included in the total given for the effect of LBO interventions for those years. For 2002—03 only the amount for revenue favour adjustments was shown.

  Adjustments are recorded for the year in which they are settled.

  UK Company Profitability
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of total UK company turnover has been spent on(a) company taxation, (b) national insurance contributions and (c) corporation tax in each of the last 10 years. [148182]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is not possible from the tax records available centrally to provide the information requested.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the productivity of UK companies with(a) 1–49, (b) 50–99, (c) 100–249, (d) 250–499, (e) 500–999 and (f) more than 1,000 employees has been in each quarter since 1997. [148178]

  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. Stephen O'Brien, dated 15 January 2004:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question on the productivity of UK companies. I am replying in his absence. (148178)
  The Office for National Statistics does not produce quarterly (or annual) estimates of productivity by size band of number of employees. Existing quarterly surveys are not suitable for producing output series by size band. They have a relatively small sample and do not include the very smallest companies (1–9 employees) and include very few with fewer than 50 employees in order to limit the statistical reporting burden on business.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Animal Experiments
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many animals have been used in scientific procedures in each of the last 10 years; and what action he is taking to reduce these numbers; [145438]
  868W
  (2) what action he is taking (a) to reduce the numbers of animals used in scientific procedures and (b) to encourage the use of alternatives; [145439]

  (3) what action he is taking to ensure that the use of animals in scientific experiments is restricted to those experiments where no alternative methods are available. [145440]

  Caroline Flint
  The number of animals used in scientific procedures in Great Britain in each of the last ten years for which figures are available is as follows:

  Number

  1993

  2,759,940

  1994

  2,772,758

  1995

  2,637,847

  1996

  2,646,026

  1997

  2,573,088

  1998

  2,593,587

  1999

  2,569,295

  2000

  2,642,993

  2001

  2,567,713

  2002

  2,655,876

  Under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, the Home Office can only license the use of animals for scientific purposes where there is no non-animal alternative, and then only when both the number of animals to he used and any resulting suffering is minimised. This reflects the principles of the 3Rs—the refinement of scientific procedures, the reduction of the number of animals used and their replacement with other methods wherever possible. However, as a demand-led regulator working on a case-by-case basis, we have no control over the total amount of research taking place. That is determined by a number of factors, including the economic climate and global trends in scientific endeavour.

  It is essential that we continue to regulate effectively. We must also continue to apply fully the 3Rs, and to support and encourage their development and promotion. We do this in a number of ways. For example, all applications are subjected to scrutiny within institutional local ethical review processes at licensed establishments, and are also assessed separately by Home Office Inspectors, who are all either medical or veterinary graduates, to ensure that no relevant replacement, reduction or refinement measure has been overlooked.

  We are also currently exploring the recommendation by the House of Lords Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures that there should be a United Kingdom centre for research into the 3Rs. This is being considered by the Inter-Departmental Group on the 3Rs, led by the Home Office and also comprising officials from the Department of Health, the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Office of Science and Technology, the Food Standards Agency, the Health and Safety Executive, and other agencies. The Inter-Departmental Group is also reviewing the effectiveness of the Inter-Departmental Data Sharing Concordat announced in August 2000, which commits United Kingdom regulatory authorities to help resolve legal and other obstacles and encourages

  869W
  data sharing between clients to reduce animal testing. The Inter-Departmental Group will report back to me on both of these issues shortly.

  In addition, every year the Home Office makes available to the Animal Procedures Committee a budget aimed at developing or promoting the 3Rs. The amount made available to the Committee for 2003–2004 for this specific purpose is £280,000. Work aimed at improving the environmental conditions in which laboratory animals are kept and transported has also been sponsored. This is not the only money spent by Government on the 3Rs. We estimate that Government Departments, agencies and funding bodies spend up to £10 million each year on such research. Industry spends a great deal more.

  On an international level, the United Kingdom Government supports the European Centre for the Validation of Alternatives Methods (ECVAM) through contributions to the European Union. It is the task of ECVAM to monitor and co-ordinate research into alternatives and to develop the processes of validation, that is, the assessment of alternative methods to see whether they are reliable and whether they produce a level of information similar to the animal based tests they are to replace.

  This is not, however, an area where quick gains can be expected. In the longer term, we believe that further significant reduction in animal use will, and must, continue to rely largely on the scientific community's own efforts to develop, validate and adopt more advanced methods based on the 3Rs.

  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to ensure that the highest standards of animal welfare are implemented in establishments using animals to carry out scientific procedures. [145441]

  Caroline Flint
  The Government are fully committed to the effective and efficient implementation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 which makes provision for the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes while recognising the need to use animals in medical research, the development of new medicines, and scientific testing.

  Under the 1986 Act, both personal and project licences are required. These ensure that those doing the work are qualified and suitable; that alternatives to animals are used wherever possible; that the number of animals used is minimised; and that any suffering or other harmful effects experienced by the animals have been weighed against the potential benefits (to humans or animals) and have been minimised.

  In addition, work can only be carried out at designated establishments which have suitable veterinary and animal welfare personnel and the standards of accommodation and care provided for the animals must meet or surpass the provisions of Home Office codes of practice. Under the Act, the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate is charged with inspecting designated places to monitor compliance with these codes of practice and the licence authorities. About 2,500 inspections are made annually of which
  870W
  two thirds are made without notice. The number of visits made to each establishment during the year is determined by its size and the type of work carried out.

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money has been made available to the Animal Procedures Committee in each year since 1997 specifically aimed at(a) developing and (b) promoting alternatives to animal experimentation; and if he will make a statement. [145442]

  Caroline Flint
  Since the financial year 1988–89, the Home Office has made available to the Animal Procedures Committee a budget for the development and promotion of alternatives which replace animal use, reduce the number of animals used, or refine the procedures involved to minimise suffering (the 3Rs). Work aimed at improving the environmental conditions in which laboratory animals are kept and transported has also been sponsored. Details of completed research are published in the Annual Reports of the Animal Procedures Committee, which are available from The Stationery Office and, for recent years, on the Committee's website.

  The Committee seeks to allocate 60 per cent. of the budgets provided on research into reducing, refining and replacing the use of animals in scientific procedures and another 20 per cent. on the development and promotion of awareness and use of alternatives. The Committee seeks to allocate the remaining 20 per cent. to research into the operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

  The budget provided to the Committee for these purposes in each year since 1997–98 was:

  £

  1997–98

  242,000

  1998–99

  182,000

  1999–2000

  259,000

  2000–01

  259,000

  2001–02

  265,000

  2002–03

  280,000

  2003–04

  280,000

  Asylum
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with EU partners concerning asylum. [145414]

  Beverley Hughes
  Government Ministers have regular discussions with counterparts in other member states on asylum issues. These discussions take place within formal bilaterals and Justice and Home Affairs Councils, as well as in the margins of other meetings.

  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applications were made in 2003; what the countries of origin were; and if he will make a statement.

  Beverley Hughes
  The table shows asylum applications to the UK by nationality for the first three quarters of 2003.
  871W
  Information on asylum applications is published quarterly. Data for the fourth quarter and consequently the whole of 2003 will be available in the next publication

  Applications1 received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, by nationality and location where made, January-September 2003

  Number of principal applicants

  Quarter 1

  Quarter 2

  Nationality

  Total

  Applied at port

  Applied in country

  Total

  Applied at port

  Applied in country

  Europe

  Albania

  230

  10

  215

  140

  10

  125

  Czech Republic

  20

  15

  5

  20

  15

  5

  Macedonia

  35

  5

  30

  10

  *

  10

  Moldova

  185

  5

  170

  5

  10

  65

  Poland

  35

  0

  25

  20

  10

  15

  Romania

  245

  30

  215

  95

  15

  75

  Russia

  70

  15

  55

  65

  5

  60

  SAM2

  345

  20

  325

  175

  15

  155

  Turkey

  645

  355

  290

  585

  325

  260

  Ukraine

  95

  15

  80

  65

  20

  50

  Other Former USSR

  175

  20

  155

  135

  25

  105

  Other Former Yugoslavia

  215

  *

  25

  10

  *

  10

  Europe other

  2055

  5

  20

  20

  10

  10

  Europe total

  2,125

  525

  1,605

  1,415

  465

  950

  Americas

  Colombia

  90

  15

  70

  60

  20

  40

  Ecuador

  65

  15

  55

  40

  10

  30

  Jamaica

  390

  65

  325

  215

  35

  180

  Americas other

  80

  25

  55

  60

  25

  35

  Americas total

  625

  120

  505

  370

  85

  285

  Middle East

  Iran

  655

  190

  465

  625

  190

  435

  Iraq

  2,135

  270

  1,865

  635

  65

  570

  Middle East other

  265

  85

  180

  230

  80

  150

  Middle East total

  3,055

  540

  2,515

  1,490

  340

  1,155

  Africa

  Algeria

  210

  35

  175

  100

  15

  85

  Angola

  300

  40

  260

  165

  25

  135

  Burundi

  210

  35

  175

  145

  25

  120

  Cameroon

  185

  20

  165

  95

  25

  70

  Congo

  145

  25

  120

  55

  15

  45

  Dem. Rep. Congo

  460

  100

  360

  300

  65

  235

  Eritrea

  245

  115

  135

  185

  80

  110

  Ethiopia

  145

  80

  65

  120

  50

  70

  Gambia

  15

  5

  10

  30

  15

  20

  Ghana

  70

  15

  55

  80

  20

  60

  Ivory Coast

  205

  40

  165

  90

  20

  70

  Kenya

  85

  20

  65

  60

  10

  50

  Nigeria

  350

  180

  170

  250

  130

  120

  Rwanda

  120

  15

  105

  70

  30

  40

  Sierra Leone

  165

  90

  75

  85

  40

  50

  Somalia

  1,515

  195

  1,320

  900

  140

  760

  Sudan

  95

  25

  75

  135

  30

  105

  Tanzania

  10

  5

  5

  5

  *

  5

  Uganda

  225

  10

  210

  165

  5

  160

  Zimbabwe

  1,075

  215

  860

  815

  210

  605

  Africa other

  410

  210

  200

  340

  170

  170

  Africa total

  6,255

  1,475

  4,780

  4,200

  1,105

  3,095

  Asia

  Afghanistan

  950

  200

  755

  485

  185

  300

  Bangladesh

  205

  25

  180

  190

  25

  165

  China

  915

  630

  280

  705

  525

  180

  India

  490

  190

  295

  645

  260

  385

  Pakistan

  490

  175

  320

  375

  85

  290

  Sri Lanka

  300

  135

  165

  245

  130

  115

  Vietnam

  345

  60

  285

  230

  75

  155

  Asia other

  215

  45

  170

  210

  80

  130

  Asia total

  3,910

  1,460

  2,445

  3,090

  1,370

  1,720

  Other, and nationality

  30

  20

  10

  15

  10

  5

  not known

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grand total

  16,000

  4,140

  11,860

  10,585

  3,370

  7,210

  872W
  at the end of February 2004 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html.
  873W

  Quarter 3

  January-September 2003

  Nationality

  Total

  Applied at port

  Applied in country

  Total

  Applied at port

  Applied in country

  Europe

  Albania

  125

  10

  115

  490

  35

  460

  Czech Republic

  25

  15

  10

  65

  45

  20

  Macedonia

  10

  *

  5

  55

  5

  45

  Moldova

  70

  15

  55

  330

  40

  290

  Poland

  10

  *

  10

  70

  20

  50

  Romania

  120

  25

  90

  455

  75

  380

  Russia

  65

  10

  55

  205

  35

  170

  SAM2

  170

  10

  155

  690

  50

  640

  Turkey

  530

  260

  265

  1,760

  940

  820

  Ukraine

  85

  15

  70

  250

  50

  200

  Other Former USSR

  170

  45

  125

  480

  95

  385

  Other Former Yugoslavia

  5

  0

  5

  40

  5

  40

  Europe other

  15

  5

  5

  55

  20

  35

  Europe total

  1,400

  420

  980

  4,945

  1,410

  3,535

  Americas

  Colombia

  40

  10

  30

  190

  45

  145

  Ecuador

  25

  *

  25

  130

  25

  110

  Jamaica

  190

  20

  170

  790

  115

  675

  Americas other

  40

  20

  20

  175

  70

  110

  Americas total

  290

  50

  245

  1,290

  250

  1,035

  Middle East

  Iran

  860

  210

  650

  2,140

  590

  1,550

  Iraq

  690

  50

  640

  3,465

  385

  3,080

  Middle East other

  285

  105

  180

  780

  270

  505

  Middle East Total

  1,835

  365

  1,470

  6,380

  1,245

  5,135

  Africa

  Algeria

  125

  10

  110

  430

  60

  375

  Angola

  215

  40

  175

  680

  105

  570

  Burundi

  170

  30

  135

  525

  90

  435

  Cameroon

  95

  10

  85

  375

  55

  320

  Congo

  70

  15

  55

  270

  55

  220

  Dem. Rep. Congo

  380

  75

  305

  1,145

  240

  905

  Eritrea

  290

  100

  190

  725

  295

  430

  Ethiopia

  190

  55

  135

  455

  185

  275

  Gambia

  20

  5

  10

  65

  25

  40

  Ghana

  85

  20

  70

  235

  55

  185

  Ivory Coast

  50

  15

  30

  345

  75

  265

  Kenya

  35

  5

  30

  180

  35

  145

  Nigeria

  190

  90

  100

  795

  400

  395

  Rwanda

  45

  15

  30

  235

  60

  175

  Sierra Leone

  70

  20

  50

  325

  150

  175

  Somalia

  1,440

  200

  1,240

  3,850

  535

  3,320

  Sudan

  320

  40

  280

  550

  90

  460

  Tanzania

  10

  5

  5

  25

  10

  15

  Uganda

  170

  10

  160

  560

  25

  535

  Zimbabwe

  710

  145

  565

  2,595

  565

  2,030

  Africa other

  480

  190

  290

  1,230

  570

  660

  Africa total

  5,155

  1,100

  4,055

  15,605

  3,680

  11,925

  Asia

  Afghanistan

  470

  165

  305

  1,910

  550

  1,360

  Bangladesh

  190

  25

  165

  580

  70

  510

  China

  965

  715

  250

  2,585

  1,875

  715

  India

  655

  310

  345

  1,790

  765

  1,025

  Pakistan

  495

  150

  340

  1,360

  410

  950

  Sri Lanka

  85

  30

  60

  630

  290

  335

  Vietnam

  260

  10

  245

  835

  150

  685

  Asia other

  135

  35

  100

  560

  165

  400

  Asia total

  3,255

  1,445

  1,810

  10,255

  4,275

  5,980

  Other, and nationality

  20

  15

  10

  65

  45

  20

  not known

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grand Total

  11,955

  3,395

  8,560

  38,540

  10,905

  27,630

  1 Figures are provisional and have been rounded to the nearest 5 with* = 1 or 2.

  2 Serbia and Montenegro (SAM) replaced Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) from 5 February 2003. SAM comprises the Republic of Serbia, the Republic of Montenegro, and the Province of Kosovo (administered by the UN on an interim basis since 1999)

  874W 875W
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many initial decision makers for asylum applications were in post on 1 October in each of the last six years. [142155]

  Beverley Hughes
  Records are available for the years from 2000. The number of staff deployed on decision-making depends on the volume of cases. Internal management information indicates that, as the backlog of outstanding applications has fallen and decisions have been made more quickly, the number of full-time equivalent staff deployed on making initial decisions for asylum applications was 477 in October 2000, 465 in October 2001,396 in October 2002 and 365 in October 2003.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what written representations he has received from the First Minister of Scotland concerning his policy in relation to the detention of families with children in removal centres. [142763]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 8 December 2003]No written representations have been received from the First Minister of Scotland on detention policy as this is a reserved matter. The First Minister has, however, written recently to me emphasising the importance of the UK Government's careful engagement with this issue.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to permit asylum seekers in general to take up employment. [142768]

  Beverley Hughes
  There are no plans to allow asylum seekers in general to take employment. The European directive on reception standards for asylum seekers comes into force in February 2005. At that time asylum seekers who have waited more than one year for an initial decision on their claim will be able to seek permission to work. Although the employment concession for asylum seekers was abolished on 23 July 2002 we retain discretion to allow asylum seekers to work. The discretion is exercised sparingly but might be appropriate in cases where an asylum seeker has, through no fault of their own, waited for longer than 12 months for an initial decision on their claim. The majority of asylum claims receive an initial decision well within this period. 81 per cent. of applications for asylum received in the period April to June 2003 had initial decisions reached and served within two months.

  We are currently considering whether asylum seekers and failed asylum seekers currently in work whose employment would meet the requirements for the issue of a work permit should be allowed to remain in employment.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Kent county council will receive central government funding in respect of the costs of asylum seekers outstanding for the financial years(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03; when funding will be received for the 2003–04 financial year; and what
  876W
  estimate he has made of the cost to Kent county council in respect of support of asylum seekers between April and November. [144468]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 16 December 2003]All amounts claimed for 2001–02 by Kent county council—in respect of support for Adults and Families and Unaccompanied Asylum Seeker Children (UASCs)—have been settled. Payments on account of the 2002–03 claim have been made but the final claim is subject to audit before it can be settled.

  Payments on account for Adults and Families have been made to Kent county council for 2003–04, based on grant claims submitted for the first two quarters. Payments on account have also been made in respect of UASC support costs, using the provisional rate for 2003–04.

  Claims for the third quarter have not yet been submitted and so the Home Office's estimates have been made on the basis of the previous claims submitted for the current year.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers were removed or made a voluntary departure to the 10 East European candidate states for membership of the European Union(a) in each of the last three years and (b) in the first half of 2003. [141552]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 4 December 2003]: Information on the destination of removals and voluntary departures is not available.

  Estimates of the number of nationals of the 10 East European candidate states who had sought asylum at some stage and who were removed between January 2001 and June 2003 are shown in the following table. These figures include persons departing 'voluntarily' after the initiation of enforcement action against them, and persons leaving under Assisted Voluntary Returns Programmes run by the International Organization for Migration.

  Information on the nationality of persons removed in 2000 and on those persons who departed voluntarily without informing the Home Office is not available.

  Removals and voluntary1 departure of asylum applicants, excluding dependants, of EU accession states, January 2001 to June 20032,4

  Nationality

  2001

  20025

  January to June 20035

  Poland

  605

  635

  470

  Czech Republic

  800

  790

  585

  Hungary

  5

  10

  5

  Lithuania

  320

  310

  125

  Latvia

  170

  175

  90

  Estonia

  60

  65

  25

  Slovakia

  60

  75

  30

  Slovenia

  *

  —

  *

  Cyprus3

  5

  15

  5

  Malta

  *

  —

  —

  Total

  2,035

  2,070

  1,340

  1 Includes persons departing 'voluntarily' after enforcement action had been initiated against them, persons leaving under Assisted Voluntary Return Programmes run by the International Organisation for Migration, and removals on safe third country grounds.
  877W
  2 Figures rounded to the nearest five, with* = 1 or 2, and may not sum due to rounding.

  3 Data exclude nationals of the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus.

  4 Data have been estimated due to data quality issues.

  5 Provisional figures.

  The number of applications from nationals of the accession countries fell from 250 in October 2002 to 25 in June 2003 following the introduction (in November 2002) of the non-suspensive appeal measure included in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

  The Home Office will continue to remove nationals of the candidate states in the same circumstances as now up until accession, although this will be kept under constant review. This is being done in the interests of maintaining an effective immigration control and the need to control numbers prior to accession; because we are not legally obliged to grant free movement rights under 1 May; and because we are giving free movement rights earlier than some other member states.

  Asylum appeals—Further appeals to the Tribunal, decisions, and the outcome of Tribunal Hearings, excluding dependants, 1994 to 20021

  Number of principal appellants

  Appeals to the Tribunal2

  Outcome of Tribunal Hearings3

  Received

  Determined

  Allowed

  Dismissed

  Withdrawn

  Remitted to adjudicators for further consideration

  1998

  1,775

  41,090

  —

  —

  —

  1999

  2,135

  1,790

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2000

  1,615

  2,635

  815

  1,385

  220

  215

  2001

  3,860

  3,190

  475

  1,140

  150

  1,430

  20025

  6,920

  5,565

  620

  2,015

  225

  2,700

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest 5. Numbers might not add up due to rounding.

  2 Figures based on data supplied by the Lord Chancellor's Department. Decisions and determinations do not necessarily correspond to applications and appeals received in any given year.

  3 Figures supplied by the Presenting Officers Unit. Figures for October to December 1999 are based on data for November to December.

  4 Revised figures.

  5 Provisional figures.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what basis he judges that the terms of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill as regards the removal of the children of asylum seekers are compatible with(a) the Human Rights Act 1998, (b) the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and (c) section 1 of the Children Act 1989. [143061]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Bill creates no powers for the removal of children of failed asylum seekers from their parents. Insofar as the withdrawal of support from people who have failed to establish a right to political asylum and who refuse to co-operate in their removal from the country leads to consideratipn by local authorities of the need for support for their children, it will be provided in a way that is consistent with the Human Rights Act, the Children Act and the United Kingdom's obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have been granted permission to work due to exceptional circumstances; and what criteria are used to determine whether an application will succeed. [143461]
  878W
  Data on the removals by nationality are available from the Home Office website at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases heard by the Immigration Appeals Tribunal in each of the last five years for which figures are available the tribunal upheld the decision being appealed. [142582]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 8 December 2003]: Data on the number of cases in which the Immigration Appeals Tribunal upheld the decision being appealed, in each of the last five years for which figures are available, are given in the following table. Appeals received do not necessarily correspond to appeals determined in any given year.

  Statistics on appeals to the Immigration Appeals Tribunal are published annually. The latest publication, Asylum Statistics United Kingdom 2002, is available on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html.

  Beverley Hughes
  The information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. Generally speaking, however, asylum seekers are not now allowed to take employment while their claim for asylum is pending. Prior to 23 July 2002 asylum seekers could request permission to work if their claim remained outstanding for longer than six months without a decision being made on it. The concession was abolished on 23 July 2002.

  The majority of asylum claims receive an initial decision well within six months. 81 per cent. of applications for asylum received in the period April—June 2003 had initial decisions reached and served within two months. 74 per cent. of applications for asylum received in 2002–03 had initial decisions reached and served within two months, 84 per cent. within four months and 87 per cent. within six months. The number of asylum seekers who would have been able to benefit from the concession had it remained in force is now much reduced.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the cost to West Sussex county council of the judgment in Behre and others v. Hillingdon London borough council, on asylum seekers in local authority care. [144993]
  879W
  Beverley Hughes
  The Home Office and the Department for Education and Skills are at present reviewing the grants arrangements for support of unaccompanied asylum seeker children (UASC) in the light of the Hillingdon judgment. A decision on the 2003–04 grant will be made shortly.

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from local authorities on the implications for them of children being taken into care under the provisions in the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill. [145189]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 5 January 2004]: We received six representations on the provision in question from local authorities, or organisations representing them or the services they administer, during the consultation exercise we carried out recently. As we made clear in our response to this exercise, it is our objective to ensure that few, if any, children need to be taken into care as a result of this provision, and officials are meeting the Local Government Association in order to discuss its practical application.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals have been housed at Oakington Immigration Reception Centre during 2003 as a result of the detention overspill facility. [145366]

  Beverley Hughes
  Following the success of the NSA process in 2002 that resulted in considerable intake reduction earlier than anticipated, there was the potential for utilisation of the Oakington facility. In line with considerations of public financial accountability a decision was taken to use part of the facility to detain families prior to removal on flights from nearby Stansted. It continued to be used for this purpose successfully throughout 2003.

  The latest available information on people held in the immigration removal estate show that as at 27 September 2003–260 people were housed at the Oakington Immigration Reception Centre. Information on the number of these who were there as a result of the detention overspill facility and on the total number of people detained in 2003 is not available except by examination of individual case-files at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what purposes, in addition to making initial decisions on asylum applications, detainees are housed at the Oakington Immigration Reception Centre. [145369]

  Beverley Hughes
  Oakington is a designated place of detention and may be used to house persons under any of the published detention criteria, including detention under fast track procedures.

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what specific actions he expects local authorities to take to protect children who are not taken into care but whose parents have had their benefits stopped as a consequence of the implementation of clause 7 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill. [145584]
  880W
  Beverley Hughes
  We are discussing with representatives of local authorities whether guidance on the way in which they would exercise their responsibilities under these circumstances would be helpful.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to change the system to record the number of asylum seekers(a) entering the UK illegally, (b) applying for asylum and (c) being detained awaiting deportation; and if he will make a statement. [145676]

  Beverley Hughes
  There are no plans to change the system to record the number of asylum seekers(a) entering the country illegally, (b) applying for asylum and (c) being detained awaiting deportation. Information on asylum applications, detainees and removals is published quarterly. The next publication will be available at the end of February 2004 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans his Department has to abolish the support only provision for asylum seekers; and if he will make a statement. [146971]

  Beverley Hughes
  There are no plans to do so at present. Section 50 of the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 allows us to withdraw the opportunity for asylum seekers to apply for financial support only. During the passage of the Bill through Parliament we gave a commitment that there would be a full public consultation process before the provision was introduced. The provision is also subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements have been made for the UN High Commission for Refugees to work with Home Office training programmes to improve decision making on asylum applications; what the terms of reference are for UNHCR involvement; and when these arrangements will be brought into effect. [147728]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 13 January 2004]: The London office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees already contributes to the training of asylum caseworkers. We intend that this fruitful relationship should continue and we are presently discussing with UNHCR what further assistance they might provide in support of our measures to assure high quality decision making processes.

  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost was in each of the last five years of police involvement in immigration controls. [147789]

  Ms Blears
  This information is not held centrally. Local police involvement in immigration controls forms part of the arrangements made by Chief Constables in the light of police authorities' policing plans.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions the powers
  881W
  under section 6 of schedule 3 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 have been used. [146492]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 8 January 2004]: We have not so far withdrawn support from any family under this provision, although its availability may have helped induce a number of failed asylum seekers to depart voluntarily.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 16 October 2003 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to Miriam Adebeshin; [141584]

  (2) when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 4 November 2003 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Miriam Adebeshin; [144642]

  (3) when he will reply to the letter to him dated 16 October 2003 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Miriam Adebeshin; [147614]

  (4) when he will reply to the letter to him dated 12 October 2003 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to Miriam Adebeshin; [142953]

  (5) when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 16 October 2003 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to Miriam Adebeshin. [145961]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I replied to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, on 12 January 2004.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he will reply to the letter to him dated 4 November 2003 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. John Alosine Bangura; [147616]

  (2) when he will reply to the letter to him dated 4 November 2003 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. John Alosine Bangura; [144637]

  (3) when he will reply to the letter to him dated 4 November 2003 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. John Alosine Bangura; [145964]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I replied to the right hon. Member on 8 January 2004.

  Crime
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what expenditure has been allocated to(a) St. Helens, (b) Merseyside and (c) the North West region to tackle crime in each year since 1992. [141292]

  Ms Blears
  General grants to police authorities are unhypothecated to particular purposes and may be used as each police authority and chief officer decide, to 882W
  support local policing plans. Government grant takes into account the whole range of policing activity, including tackling crime.

  It is a matter for the Chief Constable and Police Authority to decide on the distribution of resources within the force area.

  Police funding allocated to Merseyside and the North West is set out in the following tables. These figures also include specific grants agreed for particular purposes.

  £ million

  Government grant1 Merseyside

  North West2

  1992–933

  n/a

  n/a

  1993–943

  n/a

  n/a

  1994–953

  n/a

  n/a

  1995–96

  196.92

  752.65

  1996–97

  203.40

  789.41

  1997–98

  207.64

  805.79

  1998–99

  213.22

  834.17

  1999–2000

  215.31

  852.13

  2000–01

  222.23

  884.26

  2001–024

  234.24

  939.82

  2002–034

  238.42

  962.04

  2003–04

  253.72

  1,022.16

  1 Government Grant includes Home Office police grant, ODPM Revenue Support Grant and non-national domestic rates, Crime Fighting Fund, Rural Policing Grant, Basic Command Unit funding, Community Support Officer funding. DNA Expansion Programme, Street Crime Initiative and Special Priority payments.

  2 The North West region is policed by Cheshire, Cumbria, Greater Manchester, Lancashire and Merseyside forces.

  3 Before 1995–96, when most Police Authorities became independent local authorities, revenue support grant and non-national domestic rates were paid as part of respective county council grant funding.

  4 The grant figures for 2001–02 and 2002–03 are not directly comparable, owing to changes from 2002–03 in the method of funding the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service. These bodies became centrally rather than locally funded.

  In addition, Merseyside and the North West forces received the following funding in capital grant, including Airwave and the Premises Improvement Fund.

  £ million

  Merseyside

  North West Region

  1995–96

  6.69

  22.54

  1996–97

  5.46

  17.73

  1997–98

  6.64

  19.05

  1998–99

  3.52

  12.92

  1999–2000

  3.13

  13.46

  2000–01

  3.97

  17.59

  2001–02

  3.94

  45.46

  2002–03

  14.0

  36.56

  2003–04

  9.52

  34.96

  Drug Intervention Policies
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what effect drug intervention policies have had over the last five years in reducing(a) drugs crime, (b) drugs use and (c) drugs deaths. [146754]
  883W
  Caroline Flint
  The Updated Drug Strategy 2002 aims to concentrate resources on the most dangerous drugs, the most damaged communities and those individuals whose addiction and chaotic lifestyles are the most harmful.

  Indicators of the effect of the strategy include:
  (a) Drug crime (including supply)

  The level of seizure of drugs and drug related assets is one indicator of the effectiveness of policies to reduce the supply of illegal drugs. Recently, over £20 million worth of cocaine was seized in one of the UK's biggest ever drugs operation, while over £37 million, suspected of being the proceeds of crime or intended for use in crime, has been recovered.

  The Government are also addressing drug related crime—which includes high levels of acquisitive crime such as theft and burglary—by getting more offenders out of crime and into treatment. The numbers of problematic drug users entering treatment in 2002–03 increased by 41 per cent. to 140,900, against a baseline of 100,000 in 1998–99. In April 2003, the Criminal Justice Intervention Programme (CJIP) was introduced to break the link between drugs and crime and is now operating in the 25 Drug Action Team areas with the highest level of acquisitive crime. It will be extended to a further 22 DATs in 2004–05.

  Drug use

  Data from the British Crime Survey (2003) demonstrate reductions in overall levels of drug use. For Young People (16 to 24-year-olds):
  Reported use of Class A drugs in the last year has remained stable since 1996. Around 8 per cent. of young people had used a Class A drug in the last year;
  Since 1998, those individuals reporting use of any illicit drug in the last year decreased from 31.8 per cent. to 28.1 per cent.;
  Large decreases have been seen in the use of amphetamines (9.9 per cent. to 3.7 per cent.) and hallucinogens (5.3 per cent. to 2.0 per cent.) in the last year since 1998. However the number of individuals reporting cocaine use in the last year has increased from 3.1 per cent. in 1998 to 4.7 per cent. in 2002–03; and
  Among young people cannabis use has remained stable since 1998. In 2002–03 25.8 per cent. said that they had used it in the last year.

  For 16 to 59-year-olds:
  Since 1998, those reporting use of any illicit drug in the last year has remained stable at approximately 12 per cent. in 2002–03, while those individuals reporting use of Class A drugs in the last year has slightly increased (2.7 per cent. to 3.3 per cent.);
  Since 1998, there have been increases in last year use of cocaine (1.2 per cent. to 2.1 per cent.), crack (0.1 per cent. to 0.2 per cent.) and ecstasy (1.5 per cent. to 2.0 per cent.), although decreases in reported use of amphetamines (3.0 per cent. to 1.6 per cent.) during this period; and
  Among 16 to 59-year-olds cannabis use has remained stable since 1998. In 2002–03 10.9 per cent. said that they had used it in the last year.

  Drug deaths

  Department of Health figures for England and Wales indicate that there was a steady increase in the number of drug related deaths between 1993 and 2000, when 1,662 drug related deaths were recorded. In 2001 the number of drug related deaths decreased to 1,623.
  884W
  The Government produced "The Action Plan to Prevent Drug-Related Deaths" in 2001. The implementation of this action plan is expected to make a vital contribution to reducing drug-related deaths.

  Eurostar Terminal (Ashford)
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the staffing levels were at the Immigration and Customs posts at the Eurostar Terminal in Ashford on Friday 28 November between 18.00 and 00.00. [144902]

  Beverley Hughes
  The immigration office at the Ashford Eurostar Terminal is normally staffed from 0700 hrs. until 2300 hrs. by immigration officers based at Cheriton.

  On the evening of Friday 28 November, the immigration control was staffed as normal until 23:00 hrs. At least one officer was in attendance during the whole of that period. Officers do not control arrivals that have been cleared either at the juxtaposed controls in Paris, or that have been cleared on board. All cleared trains are notified to the office in advance. Only one train that evening had been cleared prior to arrival in Ashford.

  Customs regularly deploy anti-smuggling teams to Ashford on a risk-assessed basis. They also participate in occasional joint exercises with other Control authorities such as the Immigration Service and the British Transport police. However on the 28 November there were no customs officers in attendance at Ashford due to a special exercise taking place at Waterloo International Terminal.

  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Immigration and Customs posts at the Eurostar Rail Terminal in Ashford are staffed at all times; and if he will make a statement. [144903]

  Beverley Hughes
  The immigration office at the Ashford Eurostar Terminal is normally staffed from 0700 hours until 2300 hours by immigration officers based at Cheriton.

  Officers are scheduled to attend for all Eurostar arrivals which have not been pre-cleared. Immigration officers do not control arrivals that have been fully cleared either at the juxtaposed controls in Paris, or on board. All cleared trains are notified to the office in advance.

  Customs deploy anti-smuggling teams to Ashford on a risk-assessed basis. They also participate in occasional joint exercises with other Control authorities such as the Immigration Service and British Transport police.

  Gurkhas
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the findings of the Review on Immigration Law in relation to Gurkhas will be published. [147006]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 12 January 2004]: The internal review of our immigration policy in respect of Gurkhas serving in the British Army will be

  885W
  completed shortly and a report presented to Ministers. Once agreement has been reached on the way forward, I will write to my right hon. Member.

  Health Worker Work Permits
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many work permits have been granted since January to health workers by each Government office region; and from which countries they have come. [146003]

  Beverley Hughes
  In the first nine months of 2003, 33,057 work permits were approved for posts in the healthcare sector. This figure includes initial approvals and approvals of applications to extend and to change existing work permits.

  The table breaks this figure down by the nationality of the healthcare worker for whom the work permit was issued.

  Nationality

  Approvals for health workers

  Philippines

  8,749

  India

  7,367

  South Africa

  4,423

  Zimbabwe

  2,050

  Nigeria

  1,128

  Australia

  1,033

  Peoples Republic of China

  733

  Pakistan

  723

  Ghana

  653

  Bulgaria

  532

  Others

  5,666

  Work Permits (UK) is unable to provide data broken down by Government Office region.

  Illegal Guns
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) air weapons, (b) rifles, (c) shotguns, (d) imitation firearms and (e) handguns have been stolen in each of the last five years. [147396]

  Caroline Flint
  The information requested has been published in Table 2.11 of 'Crime in England and Wales 2001–02: Supplementary Volume', which is available in the Library.

  Immigration
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for indefinite leave to remain were submitted in 2002 by those who had previously been granted exceptional leave to remain; and how many were(a) granted and (b) refused, broken down by nationality. [141554]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 4 December 2003]: The latest available statistics are given in the table.

  The information relates to grants of indefinite leave to remain (settlement) to those who had previously been granted exceptional leave to remain.

  Information on the number of applications submitted or the number of such application refused are not currently available.
  886W

  Persons given exceptional leave to remain, granted settlement1, by main nationality, 2000

  Number of persons

  Bulgaria

  5

  Cyprus

  5

  Romania

  5

  Turkey

  75

  Russia

  10

  Ukraine

  5

  Other former USSR

  5

  Serbia and Montenegro

  120

  Croatia

  35

  Other former Yugoslavia

  415

  Other Europe

  5

  Europe

  685

  Colombia

  40

  Other Americas

  10

  Americas

  50

  Algeria

  20

  Angola

  150

  Congo (Dem. Rep.)

  215

  Egypt

  5

  Ethiopia

  95

  Ghana

  30

  Kenya

  20

  Libya

  10

  Morocco

  5

  Nigeria

  40

  Sierra Leone

  45

  Somalia

  2,720

  Sudan

  20

  Tanzania

  10

  Uganda

  160

  Other Africa

  275

  Africa

  3,810

  Bangladesh

  *

  India

  20

  Pakistan

  75

  Indian sub-continent

  95

  Iran

  140

  Iraq

  335

  Kuwait

  15

  Lebanon

  85

  Yemen

  5

  Other Middle East

  20

  Middle East

  600

  Afghanistan

  1,890

  China

  15

  Sri Lanka

  90

  Hong Kong

  5

  Other Asia

  5

  Remainder of Asia

  2,005

  Other and Stateless

  30

  All nationalities

  7,280

  1 Excludes those previously given exceptional leave to remain who are granted settlement on other grounds; also excludes dependants.

  Note:

  Data rounded to the nearest 5 with* = 1 or 2

  18 Plus
  Chris Bryant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what funding his Department and its executive agencies have provided to the 18 Plus organisation since 1997. [147351]
  887W
  Fiona Mactaggart
  Neither the Home Department, nor its executive agencies, have any records of funding the 18 Plus organisation since 1997.

  Inward Visitors
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people visited the United Kingdom from(a) Poland, (b) Australia and (c) New Zealand in the latest year for which figures are available. [147174]

  Beverley Hughes
  The latest available information is given in the table.

  Passengers given leave to enter the United Kingdom as visitors, by nationality, 2002

  Total

  Ordinary visitor

  Business visitor

  Poland

  206,000

  147,000

  59,400

  Australia

  453,000

  395,000

  57,900

  New Zealand

  116,000

  103,000

  12,800

  Note:

  The figures in this table have been rounded to three significant digits; because of this the sum of the constituent items may not agree with the total as shown.

  The information is available in the Command Paper 'Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom 2002' (Cm 6053), obtainable from the House Library, The Stationery Office and via the Home Office website http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/hobpulbsl.html.

  Murders (London)
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many murders were committed in the areas covered by the(a) Metropolitan and (b) City of London police forces in 2003. [146416]

  Ms Blears
  The requested information is not available centrally.

  New Citizens
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the development of the programme for(a) welcoming new UK citizens and (b) improving their competence in the English language. [144074]

  Beverley Hughes
  Becoming a UK citizen is an important step and we want to welcome new citizens with the right balance of solemnity and celebration. We hope that the introduction of citizenship ceremonies this year will help those who settle here to gain a fuller appreciation of the civic and political dimensions of British citizenship, to play an active role in society and to feel a greater sense of belonging to the wider UK community.

  The 'Life in the UK' Advisory Group, which we appointed to look at the content, conduct and implementation of programmes of study for new citizens, published its final report on 3 September. The report made a number of recommendations concerning the provision of language programmes, both for naturalisation applicants and for new migrants. We are
  888W
  working with the Departments for Education and Skills and for Work and Pensions to assess the implications of these recommendations.

  As we said when the report was published, we welcome the broad thrust of these proposals and are now looking at the best way of taking them forward; we intend to announce our conclusions shortly.

  People Trafficking
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on the harmonisation of legislation and penalties for people trafficking. [147319]

  Beverley Hughes
  The United Kingdom was closely involved in the drafting of the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons which supplements the United Nations Convention against Trans-National Organised Crime. This requires countries which are signatories to adopt legislation to establish "trafficking in persons" as a criminal offence. The UK was also fully involved in discussions on the subsequent EU Council Framework Decision on Combating Trafficking in Human Beings. This requires all member states to ensure that trafficking for the purposes of labour exploitation or any form of sexual exploitation are punishable by terms of imprisonment with a maximum penalty that is not less than eight years.

  We have acted quickly to deal with the worst forms of exploitation by creating an offence of trafficking for the purposes of controlling someone in prostitution within the Nationality, Immigration, and Asylum Act 2002, carrying a maximum penalty of 14 years. More comprehensive offences concerning trafficking into, within or out of the UK for the purposes of sexual exploitation are included in the Sexual Offences Act 2003, these also carry a maximum sentence of 14 years.

  A new offence covering trafficking for forced labour and removal of organs is included in the Asylum and Immigration Bill, which is currently before Parliament. Once this offence is in force the UK will be able to ratify the UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what measures he is taking to protect victims of people trafficking who come forward to the relevant authorities; and what measures are available to allow the grant of an appropriate legal status to such people to enable their rehabilitation and integration into UK society; [147321]

  (2) what plans he has for an information campaign to encourage the victims of people trafficking to come forward. [147320]

  Beverley Hughes
  The White Paper "Secure Borders, Safe Haven: integration with diversity within modern Britain"—published in February 2002—sets out our general proposals for assisting the victims of human trafficking. In particular a commitment was made that"… where such people (victims of trafficking) are willing to come forward to the authorities, we shall make special arrangements for their protection".
  889W
  We are committed to helping the victims of human trafficking. On 10 March 2003, we launched a pilot scheme under which, adult female victims of trafficking for purpose of sexual exploitation, who are willing to come forward to the authorities and help law enforcement against organised criminals are offered protection and a range of support services, such as counselling and health checks in safe accommodation managed by a voluntary sector organisation.

  The pilot scheme ended on 31 December, and in its place we have established the protection and support as a service stream of support to victims until the end of the financial year 2004–05. Although limited, the service will meet the current identified needs in the London area of adult women trafficked into the UK for purposes of sexual exploitation.

  Through the pilot scheme in partnership with a Non-Government Organisation (NGO) we have developed a communication strategy that is to be launched early in March. It is multi-dimensional and aimed specifically at three target audiences—increasing general public awareness, potential victim awareness and reaching trafficked women who have not been identified. We are developing a range of approaches including posters, networking with agencies (Health, Social Care and Housing providers), multi-disciplinary training and media profiling.

  The communication strategy will be run as part of the service providing accommodation and support to victims in the London area. We will consider its impact and potential for a wider campaign as part of the evaluation of the scheme.

  We will continue to consider victims' legal status on a case by case basis. We acknowledge that, if they do cooperate with the authorities, they may risk reprisals against themselves or their families' abroad. We will consider, in the light of individual circumstances, whether it would be appropriate to allow them to remain here. But if they are not entitled to remain, and it is not appropriate to let them stay, then they must be returned to their country wherever possible. To do otherwise would undermine our immigration law.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with his EU counterparts about tackling the cause of people trafficking through(a) socio-economic co-operation and (b) training packages for police and government officials in (i) transit countries and (ii) the countries of origin of those trafficked. [147322]

  Beverley Hughes
  The United Kingdom was closely involved in the drafting of the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons which supplements the United Nations Convention against Trans-National Organised Crime. Article 9 of this refers to the need for social and economic initiatives, and Article 10 encourages the provision of training for law enforcement or other relevant officials. There have been a number of subsequent discussions at EU level to encourage the ratification of the UN Protocol. These have recognised that an effective strategy to combat human trafficking must include both preventative action to tackle the causes of trafficking, and training and capacity building in source and transit countries.
  890W
  The UK is also contributing to, and has been involved in discussion about, the European Commission five-year (2003–07) AGIS funding programme. This will provide funding for projects in the field of police and judicial co-operation, focusing on combating organised crime, including organised immigration crime, and encouraging co-operation between law enforcement agencies. This funding provides an opportunity for member states to work together, or with new or candidate member states, to share expertise.

  Funding under the EU Phare scheme is also available to member states for projects involving training for police personnel on organised crime. On 1 August 2003 the UK successfully bid for an 18-month twinning project in the Czech Republic, under this programme. The overarching aims of this project are to strengthen the fight and preventive measures against illegal trafficking and organised prostitution, to reduce the number of persons trafficked in the Czech Republic and to strengthen the capacity of law enforcement bodies to combat trafficking.

  Tackling human trafficking in source and transit countries is an important element of the UK's strategy and alongside building on bilateral law enforcement to this end, the UK has provided funding for projects aiming to raise awareness and prevent trafficking.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many convictions for people trafficking there have been in the UK in the last 30 years; and whether in each case the victims were(a) illegal immigrants intended for the sex trade or (b) babies or children to be sold on for adoption; [147316]

  (2) how many people have been convicted under section 145 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002; and what sentences those convicted under this law have received; [147317]

  (3) how many people traffickers have been convicted in the UK under laws other than the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 in the last decade. [147318]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 received Royal Assent in November 2002, and sections 145 and 146, which cover trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation, came into force on 10 February 2003. Data on numbers of prosecutions under these sections will be collected and published in due course. Given that the powers came into effect very recently, there is not any information yet held centrally about numbers of prosecutions. Statistics of court proceedings for 2003 will be published in the autumn of 2004. The maximum sentence for this offence will be 14 years.

  Prior to the introduction of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act, there was no specific offence under which people traffickers could be prosecuted. In 2000, the Government established a multi-agency taskforce called Reflex, to co-ordinate the UK's operational response to organised immigration crime. Under Reflex, a number of organised crime gangs involved in the smuggling or trafficking of people have been disrupted. Traffickers have been prosecuted for associated offences, for example, facilitation of illegal entry or living off immoral earnings, where trafficking

  891W
  has been for the purposes of prostitution. However, comprehensive figures are not currently available centrally on the numbers of convictions for associated offences which relate to trafficking. It is therefore not possible to give figures relating to convictions for people traffickers for the last 30 years or provide a breakdown of data relating to victims in cases of trafficking.

  Police
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for regional police forces in England and Wales. [147662]

  Ms Blears
  A major consultation exercise on the future direction of police reform was launched on 4 November with the publication of "Policing: Building Safer Communities Together". Among other things this paper opens the debate on whether the current 43 force structure in England and Wales is the right one for today's and tomorrow's policing needs. A copy of the paper is in the Library.

  We are clear that any structural change will need to deliver improvements in police performance and delivery of service.

  Rape
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) which police forces use(a) the Early Evidence Kit produced by the Forensic Science Service and (b) the Tetra modules for the early securing of samples in complaints of rape and drug rape; and which use neither; [146778]

  (2) what instruction his Department gives to police forces about the use of test kits to secure samples in the event of an allegation of (a) rape or (b) drug rape. [146776]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 12 January 2004]: The Forensic Science Service (FSS) have supplied Early Evidence (K106) kits to a total of 30 forces, with 22 of these having ordered more than once. Regular users of the K106 include Cambridgeshire, Cheshire, Cumbria, Lancashire, Lincolnshire, the Metropolitan Police Service, Northumbria, Staffordshire, Suffolk and Warwickshire. FSS have received new interest and preliminary orders for Hampshire, Kent, Merseyside, North Wales, Surrey and Thames Valley Police.

  The Home Office does not hold information on the use of Tetra modules by police forces.

  Instruction on collecting evidence and how to conduct investigations is a matter for individual Chief Officers of police.

  Romanies
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Romanies from East Europe have sought access to the UK in the past three years; and how many have been admitted. [146653]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 12 January 2004]: It is not possible to say how many persons of Roma origin have sought access and have been admitted to the
  892W
  United Kingdom. Data on the ethnic origin of those entering the United Kingdom are not collated and are therefore not available.

  Arrest Statistics
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people were arrested by police forces in Scotland in respect of offences committed in(a) England and (b) Wales in each of the last five years; [147522]

  (2) how many people were arrested by police forces in (a) England and (b) Wales in respect of offences committed in Scotland in each of the last five years. [147523]

  Ms Blears
  Information on arrests collected centrally by my Department is based on persons arrested for 'notifiable' offences by police forces in England and Wales only. The information does not identify the location of where an offence was committed.

  Information for Scotland is the responsibility of the Scottish Executive.

  Street Crime
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research has been carried out by his Department into the dispersal of crime from areas targeted by the street crime initiative into outlying areas not covered. [147625]

  Ms Blears
  There has been no research into the disbursement of crime from areas targeted by the street crime initiative into outlying areas not covered by the initiative. The street crime initiative focuses on those areas which account for the great majority of street crime. In these areas, robbery fell by 17 per cent. in 2002–03. Across England and Wales in the same period, recorded robbery fell by 11 per cent. (14 per cent. adjusted for the National Crime Recording Standard).

  Terrorism Act
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times the police have used powers under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000; how many individuals this involved; and if he will make a statement. [145288]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Figures on stops and searches under section 44(1) and section 44(2) of the Terrorism. Act 2000 are published annually in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin.

  During the financial year 2001–02, police conducted a total of 9,239 stops and searches under section 44(1) of the Act and 947 stops and searches under section 44(2). During the financial year 2002–03, police conducted a total of 27,313 stops and searches under section 44(1) of the Act and 4,774 stops and searches under section 44(2). Figures for 2003–04 will be published when the relevant data has been collated and verified.

  The above data relates to the number of times police exercised powers under section 44 of the Act. Information on the number of individuals involved is not collated centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Visas
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to change the number of countries(a) on the white list and (b) for which a visa to enter the United Kingdom is required; and if he will make a statement. [145273]

  Beverley Hughes
  The list of 24 countries designated under section 94 of the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 can only be added to by Affirmative Order following debate in both Houses of Parliament. The list is kept under review and we will make proposals to amend it when we consider it to be appropriate. We have no plans at this time to amend existing visa requirements, although all such requirements are kept under review.

  Women Prisoners
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the number of women held in custody in British prisons. [143414]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 11 December 2003]: The number of women held in custody in Prison Service Establishments in England and Wales, as at 14 January 2004 was 4,283.

  Information relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for Ministers in the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Office.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what his policy is on returning to Zimbabwe people from that country who have made an unsuccessful claim for asylum in the United Kingdom; [145301]

  (2) what his policy is on granting exceptional leave to remain to Zimbabwean nationals who claim asylum in the United Kingdom. [145302]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Government's position is, as it has been since January 2002, that each asylum (and human rights) claim made by a Zimbabwean national will be considered on its individual merits in accordance with our obligations under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Each application is considered against the background of the latest available country information including that obtained from and through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  The suspension of removals of failed asylum seekers to Zimbabwe announced in January 2002 was in response to concerns about the serious deterioration in the situation in Zimbabwe in the build up to the Presidential election held in March that year. We did not regard it as unsafe to return failed asylum seekers to Zimbabwe, but in view of the rapidly changing conditions we considered that it would be appropriate not to enforce returns.

  We do of course recognise that conditions in Zimbabwe are such that there are individuals who are able to demonstrate a need for international protection. Where they meet the definition of a refugee in the 1951
  894W
  Convention, asylum is granted. There may also be individuals whose circumstances make them particularly vulnerable and who would engage our obligations under the ECHR. Where this is the case these individuals will be granted Humanitarian Protection or Discretionary Leave.

  In the first nine months of this year we have granted asylum to 755 Zimbabweans and granted other forms of protection, including Humanitarian Protection, Discretionary leave (and their predecessor, exceptional leave to remain), to over 25 others. These statistics show that we are giving protection to the significant number of people who are found to be in need of it.

  If an application is refused, there will be a right of appeal to the independent appellate authorities against that decision. Should a claim be refused and any appeal be unsuccessful that means that, for that individual, return to Zimbabwe would be safe. That is why we consider it reasonable to expect an individual in that position to leave voluntarily.

  Although it would be safe to return failed asylum seekers to Zimbabwe, our view at present is that in the wider context of the Government's position on Zimbabwe, it would be inappropriate forcibly to return them at this time.

  The policy remains under continuous review.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Funding of Schools Programme
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the basis was for his decision on how funding under the funding of schools programme should be allocated; and if he will make a statement on the impact of that decision on Nottingham, North. [147877]

  Mr. Miliband
  We will announce shortly the local authority projects in wave 1 of Building Schools for the Future. We published our criteria for prioritisation in July 2003, and I have placed a copy of this guidance in the House of Commons Library.

  Secondary education in every part of England should have facilities of 21st Century standard, and we are committed to deliver this goal within 10 to 15 years from 2005–06, subject to future public spending decisions.

  Physics Graduates
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students graduated with degrees in physics in(a) 1997 and (b) 2003. [147878]

  Alan Johnson
  The number of students obtaining degrees in physics was 2,440 in 1997 and 2,205 in 2003.

  LEA Expenditure
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on exempting local education authorities from limitations on their central expenditure. [147879]
  895W
  Mr. Miliband
  We have made clear that our priority for school funding in 2004–05 is getting money into schools' own delegated budgets. That is why a statutory limit on increases in central spend within education authorities' overall Schools Budgets is an important feature of the arrangements which my right hon. Friend announced on 29 October. We recognise however that some authorities, in exceptional circumstances, may have difficulty in complying with the national limit, and there is a process by which they may seek approval for a higher limit.

  Early Years Education
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what progress he has made with his policy on early years education; and if he will make a statement. [147880]

  Margaret Hodge
  Before 1997, whether or not your child could get a nursery place depended entirely on where you lived. By April 2004, six months ahead of target, every three and four-year-old child will enjoy a free part-time nursery education place as of right. That is the difference the Labour Government makes to children's opportunities.

  By introducing the warmly received Foundation Stage for children in their early years together with the registration and inspection of all settings by Ofsted, we are ensuring high quality nursery education for all our children.

  We are now starting to develop Children's Centres which combine early education with full day care, health and family support. 61 Children's Centres have been approved and the Chancellor recently announced in his pre-Budget review that we will create 1,000 Children's Centres by 2008.

  Primary School Teachers
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many primary school teachers were on permanent contracts in London in September(a) 1997, (b) 2000, (c) 2001 and (d) 2003; and how many unfilled vacancies there were in each of these months. [147881]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The information is not available in this form. In the London Government Office Region, there were 28,860 full-time equivalent regular teachers in maintained nursery and primary schools at January 1997; 28,870 at January 2000; 29,190 at January 2001; and 29,760 at January 2003. There were 450 unfilled nursery and primary teacher vacancies at January 1997; 520 at January 2000; 820 at January 2001; and 410 at January 2003.

  Capital Funding (East Midlands)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations he has received concerning targeted capital funding in the east midlands. [147882]

  Mr. Miliband
  We have received two letters supporting targeted capital fund bids in the east midlands. Although authorities in your region were not very successful in last year's round, the Department has 896W
  worked closely with east midland authorities since then to try to ensure that they have a better understanding of the bidding process and assessment criteria. We aim to announce successful projects shortly.

  Deaf Children
  Jon Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps his Department has taken to ensure access to the full school curriculum for all deaf children; and if he will make a statement. [147883]

  Margaret Hodge
  All maintained schools—mainstream and special—are required to provide the full national curriculum and to ensure that all deaf children have access to it, other than where it has been disapplied.

  Variable Fees
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether he plans that the cap on variable fees will stay at £3,000 until 2014. [147884]

  Alan Johnson
  I have already given my assurance that the fee cap will stay at £3,000 in real terms for the life of the next Parliament and I confirm that once more. Beyond that, any increase which is above the rate of inflation will, under the terms of the legislation, need to be approved by affirmative resolution which would require the consent of both Houses. I recognise that there are none the less concerns about the impact of variable fees on the university system: the Government will therefore establish an independent review, working with the Office for Fair Access, to report to the House, based on the first three years of their operation.

  Adult Learning Grant
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps his Department is taking to promote the take up of the Adult Learning Grant. [147885]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We are working with the Learning and Skills Council, further education providers and other partners to promote the Adult Learning Grant. The main focus of the 10 pilots is on promoting the grant to new learners starting courses during January 2004 and to existing learners who may be eligible but have not applied. This involves a variety of methods including posters, college prospectuses, advertising in the local press, on bus shelters and on local radio, and mail shots targeted at specific audiences. Over 2,600 people have applied for the grant.

  Adoption
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average time taken to complete an adoption placement was, broken down by local authority area, for the last 12 months for which figures are available. [143362]

  Margaret Hodge
  The attached table shows the average time in days between the local authority's decision that it is in a child's best interest to be adopted and the date of adoption, for looked after children adopted in England during the year ending 31 March 2002. A copy of the table has been placed in the Library.

  Broadband
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans his Department has to assist in making broadband available to an educational institution available to the wider community. [147916]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My Department recognises the potential benefits to the community in schools being connected to broadband and making access to their ICT infrastructure more widely available. The 10 Regional Broadband Consortia for England are working with their member LEAs and schools in their area to develop this network accessibility.

  The cross-government Broadband Aggregation Project, announced by e-Commerce Minister Stephen Timms in July last year, is also addressing the issues involved in using schools as broadband hubs for the wider community. Although there are some instances already where schools are extending access to the community, there are a number of issues to consider and resolve before defining the way forward in this area.

  In terms of access to ICT more broadly, the Department's Extended Schools and School Community Links Team are developing guidance to assist schools in offering a range of ICT facilities to their communities. This guidance is expected to be available by the end of March 2004.

  Children Green Paper
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills at what stage under the proposals in the Children Green Paper children will be given a unique identification number with corresponding data file. [145657]

  Margaret Hodge
  A Bill designed to improve services which protected children was announced in the Queens speech will be introduced to improve services designed to protect children. Subject to the outcome of consultation on the Children's Green Paper "Every Child Matters", the Bill will include proposals for local information sharing systems to enable practitioners to share early information about children and young people where appropriate. Implementation of the proposed local systems will require the development of a basic dataset on all children in an area together with a unique identifying number. This would apply from birth or if a child moves areas still has the same number. Only when a child comes into the country will she/he have to be allocated a number.

  Civil Servants (Disabilities)
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what progress has been made in meeting targets for the proportion of people with disabilities in senior posts in his Department. [145999]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My Department's target is that by 2005, 3 per cent. of those in the senior civil service should be people with disabilities.

  Statistical information about senior civil servants with disabilities is available on the Civil Service Statistics web-site at: http://www.civil-service.gov.uk/
  898W
  statistics/documents/pdf/disability-octOS.pdf. This shows that as of 1 April 2003, the proportion of senior civil servants with declared disabilities is 2.3 per cent.

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

  Specialist College Status
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools applied in the latest round for engineering specialist status; how many were successful; and if he will make a statement. [146500]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 8 January 2004]: 17 schools applied for the engineering specialism in the last round of applications for specialist college status, which closed on 17 October 2003. Assessment of the 393 applications received is continuing and an announcement will be made in approximately one month.

  Education (Financial Support)
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list for each local education authority the financial support for education that remains to be transferred under the changes to local government funding announced last year; and when he expects this process to be completed. [144905]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Government introduced a new funding formula for local authorities in 2003—04. Floors and ceilings have been used on both the calculation of education Formula Spending Shares and Revenue Support Grant to phase in the new formula. This means that some authorities receive funding allocations above the level of the new formula and some receive funding allocations below the level of the new formula. The Government expect floors and ceilings to continue for as long as they are necessary. We have also said that we expect the Schools Formula Spending Share floor to be at least 5 per cent. per pupil in 2005–06.

  The amount of damping through floors and ceilings on the Education Formula Spending Share for each local education authority is shown as follows:

  Schools formula spending share

  LEA formula spending share

  Total

  Barking and Dagenham

  1.0

  (0.1)

  0.9

  Barnet

  (0.2)

  (0.3)

  (0.5)

  Barnsley

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Bath and North East Somerset

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Bedfordshire

  0.6

  0.0

  0.6

  Bexley

  3.2

  0.1

  3.3

  Birmingham

  (16.5)

  (3.0)

  (19.4)

  Blackburn

  (0.5)

  (0.1)

  (0.5)

  Blackpool

  0.0

  (0.0)

  (0.0)

  Bolton

  (3.8)

  (0.6)

  (4.4)

  Bournemouth

  0.2

  0.1

  0.3

  Bracknell Forest

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Bradford

  (9.6)

  (1.5)

  (11.0)

  Brent

  0.0

  (0.4)

  (0.4)

  Brighton and Hove

  6.6

  0.8

  7.4

  899W

  Schools formula spending share

  LEA formula spending share

  Total

  Bromley

  7.7

  0.2

  7.9

  Buckinghamshire

  0.0

  (0.1)

  (0.1)

  Bury

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Calderdale

  0.0

  (0.1)

  (0.1)

  Cambridgeshire

  (0.1)

  (0.4)

  (0.5)

  Camden

  0.9

  (0.1)

  0.8

  Cheshire

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  City of Bristol

  (2.9)

  (0.2)

  (3.2)

  City of Kingston-upon-Hull

  0.0

  0.1

  0.1

  City of London

  (0.3)

  (0.2)

  (0.5)

  Cornwall

  0.0

  (0.0)

  (0.0)

  Coventry

  (0.8)

  0.0

  (0.8)

  Croydon

  1.2

  0.2

  1.4

  Cumbria

  (0.2)

  0.0

  (0.2)

  Darlington

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Derby

  0.0

  (0.0)

  (0.0)

  Derbyshire

  0.0

  0.9

  0.9

  Devon

  0.0

  (0.1)

  (0.1)

  Doncaster

  0.0

  0.1

  0.1

  Dorset

  0.0

  (0.3)

  (0.3)

  Dudley

  (4.0)

  (0.6)

  (4.6)

  Durham

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Haling

  (2.2)

  (0.5)

  (2.7)

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  0.0

  (0.2)

  (0.2)

  East Sussex

  12.8

  1.5

  14.2

  Enfield

  4.5

  0.0

  4.5

  Essex

  38.7

  4.6

  43.3

  Gateshead

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Gloucestershire

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Greenwich

  (0.8)

  (0.1)

  (0.9)

  Hackney

  (2.0)

  (0.7)

  (2.8)

  Halton

  0.0

  0.1

  0.1

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1.1

  (0.2)

  0.9

  Hampshire

  16.5

  2.4

  18.9

  Haringey

  2.7

  (0.2)

  2.5

  Harrow

  (0.1)

  (0.1)

  (0.2)

  Hartlepool

  (0.6)

  (0.1)

  (0.7)

  Havering

  4.4

  0.3

  4.7

  Herefordshire

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Hertfordshire

  6.6

  0.9

  7.5

  Hillingdon

  (0.7)

  (0.5)

  (1.1)

  Hounslow

  0.0

  (0.1)

  (0.1)

  Isle of Wight Council

  0.6

  0.1

  0.7

  Isles of Scilly

  (0.1)

  (0.0)

  (0.1)

  Islington

  (0.5)

  (0.2)

  (0.7)

  Kensington and Chelsea

  4.1

  0.3

  4.4

  Kent

  33.1

  3.6

  36.6

  Kingston upon Thames

  (0.3)

  (0.1)

  (0.4)

  Kirklees

  (0.4)

  (0.1)

  (0.4)

  Knowsley

  0.4

  0.3

  0.7

  Lambeth

  0.4

  (0.2)

  0.2

  Lancashire

  0.0

  1.5

  1.5

  Leeds

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Leicester

  0.0

  (0.1)

  (0.1)

  Leicestershire

  0.8

  0.0

  0.8

  Lewisham

  0.0

  0.1

  0.1

  Lincolnshire

  0.0

  (0.5)

  (0.5)

  Liverpool

  0.0

  0.4

  0.4

  Luton

  0.0

  (0.1)

  (0.1)

  Manchester

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Medway

  4.0

  0.4

  4.4

  Merton

  (0.7)

  (0.2)

  (1.0)

  Middlesbrough

  (1.6)

  0.4

  (1.2)

  Milton Keynes

  0.0

  (0.3)

  (0.3)

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  0.0

  0.6

  0.6

  Newham

  0.0

  (0.1)

  (0.1)

  Norfolk

  0.9

  0.0

  0.9

  North East Lincolnshire

  0.0

  0.1

  0.1

  North Lincolnshire

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  North Somerset

  0.0

  (0.2)

  (0.2)

  North Tyneside

  0.0

  (0.0)

  (0.0)

  North Yorkshire

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Northamptonshire

  0.0

  (0.2)

  (0.2)

  Northumberland

  (0.2)

  0.0

  (0.2)

  Nottingham City

  (2.3)

  (0.6)

  (2.9)

  900W

  Schools formula spending share

  LEA formula spending share

  Total

  Nottinghamshire

  0.0

  0.5

  0.5

  Oldham

  (4.0)

  (0.4)

  (4.4)

  Oxfordshire

  0.4

  (0.3)

  0.1

  Peterborough

  (0.1)

  (0.1)

  (0.2)

  Plymouth

  0.0

  0.2

  0.2

  Poole

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Portsmouth

  1.5

  0.4

  1.8

  Reading

  (1.9)

  (0.2)

  (2.2)

  Redbridge

  0.0

  (0.1)

  (0.1)

  Redcar and Cleveland

  0.0

  0.1

  0.1

  Richmond upon Thames

  0.0

  (0.0)

  (0.0)

  Rochdale

  (1.6)

  (0.0)

  (1.6)

  Rotherham

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Rutland

  (0.3)

  (0.1)

  (0.4)

  Salford

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Sandwell

  (6.7)

  (1.0)

  (7.8)

  Sefton

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Sheffield

  0.0

  (0.1)

  (0.1)

  Shropshire

  0.0

  (0.0)

  (0.0)

  Slough

  0.1

  (0.0)

  0.1

  Solihull

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Somerset

  0.5

  0.0

  0.5

  South Gloucestershire

  0.0

  (0.1)

  (0.1)

  South Tyneside

  (0.1)

  0.0

  (0.1)

  Southampton

  2.8

  0.2

  3.1

  Southend

  4.4

  0.5

  4.9

  Southwark

  (0.2)

  (1.4)

  (1.6)

  St. Helens

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Staffordshire

  0.0

  (0.1)

  (0.1)

  Stockport

  0.0

  0.1

  0.1

  Stockton-on-Tees

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Stoke on Trent

  (0.8)

  (0.2)

  (1.1)

  Suffolk

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Sunderland

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Surrey

  0.0

  (0.4)

  (0.4)

  Sutton

  1.5

  (0.0)

  1.5

  Swindon

  0.0

  0.8

  0.8

  Tameside

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  The Wrekin

  0.0

  (0.0)

  (0.0)

  Thurrock

  3.1

  0.2

  3.3

  Torbay

  0.0

  (0.1)

  (0.1)

  Tower Hamlets

  (7.4)

  (1.6)

  (9.0)

  Trafford

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Wakefield

  (1.3)

  (0.0)

  (1.3)

  Walsall

  (7.7)

  (1.0)

  (8.7)

  Waltham Forest

  2.9

  0.1

  3.0

  Wandsworth

  0.0

  (1.5)

  (1.5)

  Warrington

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Warwickshire

  (0.4)

  (0.0)

  (0.5)

  West Berkshire

  (1.2)

  (0.2)

  (1.4)

  West Sussex

  12.2

  1.1

  13.3

  Westminster

  0.0

  (0.7)

  (0.7)

  Wigan

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Wiltshire

  0.0

  (0.4)

  (0.4)

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  0.0

  (0.1)

  (0.1)

  Wirral

  0.0

  0.2

  0.2

  Wokingham

  (1.3)

  (0.2)

  (1.5)

  Wolverhampton

  (4.3)

  (0.2)

  (4.5)

  Worcestershire

  0.0

  (0.3)

  (0.3)

  York

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Education (North-west)
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much spending there was on(a) education as a whole, (b) nursery schools, (c) primary education and (d) secondary education in (i) St. Helens, (ii) Merseyside and (iii) the north west region, in each year since 1992. [141469]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is contained in the following table.
  901W

  Education spending since 1992

  Pre-primary

  Primary

  Pre-primary and Primary1

  Secondary

  Education as a Whole2

  St. Helens.

  1992–93

  3—

  3—

  28,898

  35,041

  102,426

  1993–94

  3—

  3—

  30,627

  32,779

  85,062

  1994–95

  3—

  3—

  32,871

  32,844

  85,310

  1995–96

  3—

  3—

  30,956

  30,296

  77,700

  1996–97

  3—

  3—

  32,117

  29,771

  78,556

  1997–98

  3—

  3—

  32,702

  29,885

  78,961

  1998–99

  3—

  3—

  35,645

  32,198

  84,024

  1999–00

  1,084

  36,540

  37,623

  34,488

  85,584

  2000–01

  1,831

  40,133

  41,965

  37,845

  91,093

  2001–02

  2,411

  43,486

  45,897

  42,519

  99,637

  Merseyside

  1992–93

  3—

  3—

  241,358

  257,792

  761,742

  1993–94

  3—

  3—

  248,440

  245,652

  675,489

  1994–95

  3—

  3—

  262,010

  250,141

  681,582

  1995–96

  3—

  3—

  258,121

  229,249

  634,928

  1996–97

  3—

  3—

  262,052

  228,950

  636,955

  1997–98

  3—

  3—

  261,716

  228,303

  633,227

  1998–99

  3—

  3—

  283,225

  245,987

  668,422

  1999–00

  8,562

  295,022

  303,584

  285,872

  706,519

  2000–01

  14,988

  325,021

  340,009

  326,085

  772,295

  2001–02

  21,048

  350,485

  371,533

  365,721

  838,990

  North West

  1992–93

  3—

  3—

  1,144,841

  1,153,066

  3,503,836

  1993–94

  3—

  3—

  1,158,010

  1,049,978

  3,056,288

  1994–95

  3—

  3—

  1,202,426

  1,089,653

  3,075,507

  1995–96

  3—

  3—

  1,185,076

  1,000,413

  2,826,562

  1996–97

  3—

  3—

  1,213,943

  1,018,336

  2,865,849

  1997–98

  3—

  3—

  1,221,486

  1,027,733

  2,887,946

  1998–99

  3—

  3—

  1,321,152

  1,089,898

  3,045,955

  1999–00

  46,199

  1,394,850

  1,441,049

  1,286,311

  3,229,306

  2000–01

  67,355

  1,522,508

  1,589,863

  1,407,303

  3,455,557

  2001–02

  91,379

  1,676,685

  1,768,064

  1,588,239

  3,798,289

  1 Expenditure was not distinguished between pre-primary and primary sectors until the inception of the Section 52 outturn statement in 1999–2000.

  2 Education as a whole includes expenditure on all phases of school education (including pre-primary), education out of school, continuing education and management and support.

  3 n/a

  Notes:

  1. Net current expenditure includes expenditure within schools and also that incurred centrally by the LEAs.

  2. Figures are in cash terms and rounded to the nearest £1,000.

  3. The decrease in local authority expenditure on education from 1993–94 reflects the transfer of responsibility for providing most kinds of further education from local education authorities to the Further Education Funding Council on 1 April 1993.

  4. Financial data is drawn from the DfES Section 52 outturn statements from 1999–2000 onwards and the ODPM's ROI statement previously.

  5. Nursery education was not shown separately until 1999–2000, therefore figures for nursery are included within pre-primary and primary.

  6. Figures are as reported by LEAs.

  Education Spending Formula
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list for each local education authority the education formula spending share(a) before and (b) after the impact of floors and ceilings for 2004–05. [147993]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table provides the education formula spending share for each authority before and after the schools formula spending share floor and ceiling of 5 per cent. per pupil and 6.8 per cent. per pupil are applied and the LEA formula spending share floor and ceiling of 3 per cent. and 3.75 per cent. are applied. These figures are as announced at the provisional local government settlement.
  902W

  £ million

  2004–05

  EFSS before floors and ceilings

  EFSS after floors and ceilings

  City of London

  1.764

  1.302

  Camden

  100.120

  100.916

  Greenwich

  161.585

  160.700

  Hackney

  142.929

  140.163

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  81.081

  82.024

  Islington

  120.778

  120.072

  Kensington and Chelsea

  50.580

  54.988

  Lambeth

  150.161

  150.404

  Lewisham

  165.109

  165.212

  Southwark

  173.607

  172.032

  Tower Hamlets

  197.838

  188.854

  Wandsworth

  128.368

  126.896

  Westminster

  91.243

  90.506

  Barking and Dagenham

  114.109

  115.035

  Barnet

  171.688

  171.198

  903W

  £ million

  2004–05

  EFSS before floors and ceilings

  EFSS after floors and ceilings

  Bexley

  131.098

  134.381

  Brent

  158.819

  158.393

  Bromley

  154.848

  162.787

  Croydon

  188.848

  190.281

  Ealing

  169.680

  167.005

  Enfield

  179.326

  183.868

  Haringey

  142.057

  144.595

  Harrow

  115.267

  115.053

  Havering

  125.699

  130.444

  Hillingdon

  149.017

  147.900

  Hounslow

  134.449

  134.342

  Kingston upon Thames

  70.300

  69.904

  Merton

  86.351

  85.364

  Newham

  219.323

  219.210

  Redbridge

  150.033

  149.909

  Richmond upon Thames

  71.882

  71.850

  Sutton

  104.151

  105.644

  Waltham Forest

  143.293

  146.315

  Birmingham

  669.571

  650.132

  Coventry

  167.999

  167.248

  Dudley

  167.200

  162.610

  Sandwell

  181.061

  173.303

  Solihull

  114.340

  114.340

  Walsall

  161.220

  152.513

  Wolverhampton

  142.789

  138.272

  Knowsley

  99.718

  100.390

  Liverpool

  271.638

  271.996

  St. Helens

  96.271

  96.272

  Sefton

  148.992

  148.992

  Wirral

  176.199

  176.369

  Bolton

  155.564

  151.168

  Bury

  97.015

  97.015

  Manchester

  260.186

  260.186

  Oldham

  143.382

  138.967

  Rochdale

  127.920

  126.304

  Salford

  119.915

  119.915

  Stockport

  137.019

  137.069

  Tameside

  125.655

  125.655

  Trafford

  112.925

  112.938

  Wigan

  163.876

  163.919

  Barnsley

  116.031

  116.031

  Doncaster

  165.404

  165.475

  Rotherham

  148.802

  148.802

  Sheffield

  258.301

  258.209

  Bradford

  299.793

  288.749

  Calderdale

  113.205

  113.145

  Kirklees

  219.389

  218.940

  Leeds

  362.994

  362.994

  Wakefield

  169.734

  168.416

  Gateshead

  95.173

  95.181

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  130.952

  131.564

  North Tyneside

  96.317

  96.313

  South Tyneside

  84.239

  84.179

  Sunderland

  158.906

  158.906

  Isles of Scilly

  1.773

  1.678

  Bath and North East Somerset

  79.391

  79.391

  City of Bristol

  169.802

  166.648

  North Somerset

  89.368

  89.216

  South Gloucestershire

  125.169

  125.041

  Hartlepool

  55.189

  54.519

  Middlesbrough

  75.990

  74.771

  Redcar and Cleveland

  82.467

  82.520

  Stockton-on-Tees

  102.211

  102.237

  City of Kingston-upon-Hull

  144.446

  144.573

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  158.835

  158.586

  North East Lincolnshire

  92.080

  92.167

  North Lincolnshire

  85.175

  85.175

  North Yorkshire

  283.087

  283.102

  York

  76.022

  76.036

  Bedfordshire

  204.933

  205.485

  Luton

  121.135

  121.056

  Buckinghamshire

  248.235

  248.099

  Milton Keynes

  125.343

  125.049

  Derbyshire

  364.793

  365.664

  Derby

  127.965

  127.959

  Dorset

  175.648

  175.363

  Poole

  59.763

  59.791

  Bournemouth

  68.580

  68.872

  Durham

  253.727

  253.776

  904W

  £ million

  2004–05

  EFSS before floors and ceilings

  EFSS after floors and ceilings

  Darlington

  53.014

  53.014

  East Sussex

  222.316

  236.535

  Brighton and Hove

  101.411

  108.842

  Hampshire

  587.937

  606.795

  Portsmouth

  91.764

  93.604

  Southampton

  110.462

  113.528

  Leicestershire

  293.424

  294.246

  Leicester

  172.869

  172.802

  Rutland

  17.207

  16.807

  Staffordshire

  403.262

  403.191

  Stoke on Trent

  129.956

  128.872

  Wiltshire

  217.519

  217.111

  Swindon

  96.478

  97.258

  Bracknell Forest

  52.563

  52.563

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  65.606

  65.512

  West Berkshire

  82.575

  81.204

  Reading

  61.992

  59.826

  Slough

  76.380

  76.437

  Wokingham

  78.514

  77.008

  Cambridgeshire

  263.679

  263.139

  Peterborough

  101.333

  101.086

  Cheshire

  334.188

  334.188

  Halton

  72.080

  72.170

  Warrington

  100.320

  100.323

  Devon

  321.672

  321.601

  Plymouth

  126.934

  127.087

  Torbay

  61.837

  61.784

  Essex

  658.698

  701.999

  Southend

  87.400

  92.273

  Thurrock

  80.789

  84.096

  Herefordshire

  84.055

  84.055

  Worcestershire

  253.776

  253.498

  Kent

  688.677

  725.321

  Medway

  144.235

  148.638

  Lancashire

  593.907

  595.392

  Blackburn

  93.106

  92.580

  Blackpool

  74.614

  74.572

  Nottinghamshire

  373.900

  374.433

  Nottingham City

  147.408

  144.519

  Shropshire

  135.222

  135.205

  The Wrekin

  90.911

  90.907

  Cornwall

  245.872

  245.863

  Cumbria

  248.261

  248.047

  Gloucestershire

  277.292

  277.292

  Hertfordshire

  557.018

  564.551

  Isle of Wight Council

  67.160

  67.874

  Lincolnshire

  336.164

  335.663

  Norfolk

  374.454

  375.347

  Northamptonshire

  337.605

  337.429

  Northumberland

  156.863

  156.702

  Oxfordshire

  287.653

  287.762

  Somerset

  237.086

  237.617

  Suffolk

  319.484

  319.484

  Surrey

  487.405

  487.007

  Warwickshire

  249.596

  249.140

  West Sussex

  348.263

  361.527

  English and Mathematics Test
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of pupils achieved level 4 or above in Key Stage 2 test results for 11-year-olds in(a) English and (b) mathematics in 2003 in the London boroughs of (i) Redbridge and (ii) Waltham Forest. [147393]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table shows the percentage of pupils who achieved the expected level (Level 4) or above in the 2003 National Curriculum Key Stage 2 assessment tests in(a) English and (b) mathematics in the London boroughs of (i) Redbridge and (ii) Waltham Forest.
  905W

  (a) English

  (b) Mathematics

  (i)Redbridge

  78

  73

  (ii)Waltham Forest

  69

  68

  Further Eudcation (Plumbing-related Crafts)
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students in England attended further education classes in(a) plumbing and (b) plumbing-related crafts in each of the last three years. [148046]

  Alan Johnson
  The numbers of learners enrolled on plumbing and related courses at further education sector colleges in the three years to 2001/02 are shown in the table below. Due to the variety of plumbing and related courses on offer, it is not possible to distinguish between those courses in plumbing and those in plumbing related crafts.

  Learners enrolled on plumbing and related courses at further education sector colleges in England: 1999/2000 to 2001/02

  thousands

  Learners

  1999/2000

  21.8

  2000/01

  23.9

  2001/02

  29.8

  Source:

  LSC Individualised Student Record.

  Higher Education
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the link between applications to universities and social background of students. [147018]

  Alan Johnson
  The social class gap among those entering higher education is unacceptably wide. The most recent UCAS figures show that in 2001 71 per cent. of applicants came from the top three social classes and only 29 per cent. from the bottom three.

  The main problem is prior attainment. 19 per cent. of 18-year-olds from the three lower social classes achieve two or more A Levels, compared to 50 per cent. from the three higher social classes.

  The Government have put in place a range of policies to raise attainment and aspirations. These were summarised in "Widening participation in higher education", published in April 2003. A copy is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers were provided with information technology equipment to use in their own home in the last year for which figures are available. [146659]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Laptops for Teachers initiative provided 68,507 teachers with a laptop computer for use at home and school during the 2002/03 906W
  financial year. To date, the initiative has provided another 60,235 teachers with laptops in the current financial year.

  School Budgets
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the schools in Huntingdon which ran a budget deficit in the year ending 31 March 2003; and how much this deficit was for each school. [146434]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is submitted to the Department according to local education authority areas, rather than districts within an area. Huntingdon is a district of Cambridgeshire local education authority. The information for Cambridgeshire LEA is as follows:

  Cambridgeshire schools showing a deficit budget in the year ending 31 March 2003

  School name

  DfES number

  Deficit budget1 (£)

  Abbey Meadows Primary School

  2,450

  (12,317)

  Brington C of E Primary School

  3,081

  (4,470)

  Bushmead Primary School

  2,452

  (55,343)

  Cherry Hinton Community Junior School

  2,312

  (36,500)

  Chesterton Community College

  4,029

  (220,765)

  City of Ely Community College

  4,083

  (138,722)

  Coleridge Community College

  4,031

  (84,470)

  Ernulf Community School

  4,077

  (198,638)

  Fawcett Primary School

  2,336

  (13,287)

  Fowlmere Primary School

  2,011

  (1,892)

  Hinchingbrooke School

  4,503

  (175,812)

  John Falkner Community Infant School

  2,035

  (71)

  Kings Hedges Primary School

  2.446

  (41,371)

  Little Paxton Primary School

  2,293

  (33,790)

  Melbourn Village College

  4,040

  (345,183)

  Middlefield Community Primary School

  2,257

  (21,135)

  Petersfield C of E Aided Primary School

  3,331

  (19,240)

  Ridgefield Primary School

  2,453

  (12,977)

  Sawston Village College

  5,408

  (84.516)

  Sawtry Community College

  5,403

  (1,013,001)

  St. Alban's RC Primary School

  3,360

  (15,361)

  St. Anne's C of E Primary School

  3,384

  (38,893)

  St. Helen's Primary School

  5,200

  (7,699)

  St. John's C of E Primary School

  3,072

  (20,853)

  St. Peter's School

  5,412

  (81,341)

  St. Philip's C of E Aided Primary School

  3,358

  (7,960)

  The Cromwell Community College

  4,045

  (1,842)

  The Manor Community College

  4,057

  (583,428)

  The Meridian Primary School

  2,059

  (6,828)

  The Windmill Special School

  7,009

  (93,747)

  Thomas Eaton Primary School

  2,090

  (7,273)

  Witchford Village College

  4,055

  (163,030)

  1 The data are as reported by Cambridgeshire LEA's within their 2002–03 Section 52 Outturn Statement (table B) submitted to the DfES.

  Notes:

  1. Deficit budget is taken from table B column 13-other revenue balance. This includes the cumulative balance of income less expenditure from revenue funding sources during the financial year and the balance from previous year.

  2. The data are as at 6 January 2004. Currently the data remains provisional as it is subject to validation and could change.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools in Lancashire ran a deficit budget in each of the last three years. [146974]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is given in the following table.
  907W

  Lancashire schools reporting a deficit budget in each of the last three years

  Number of Schools

  2000–01

  26

  2001–02

  16

  2002–03

  18

  Notes:

  1. The data are as reported by Lancashire education authority within their Section 52 Outturn statements (Table B) submitted to the DfES.

  2. Section 52 data for 2002–03 is regarded as provisional and is therefore subject to changes by Lancashire LEA which may alter the results for that period.

  School Governance
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the(a) total cost and (b) cost per issue was of producing and distributing the document, "Statutory Guidance on the School Governance (England) Regulation 2003", to schools. [147401]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department issued statutory and non-statutory guidance on the following governance regulations in 2003: constitution, procedures, new schools, governance federations and collaboration

  Maintained primary and secondary schools1: school meal arrangements January 2003—By Lancashire Local Education Authority and each district within the authority

  All pupils

  Number on roll

  Number of pupils taking free school meals

  Percentage of pupils taking free school meals

  Number of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals

  Percentage of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals

  Maintained primary schools

  Lancashire local education authority

  98,784

  13,172

  13.3

  15,575

  15.8

  Blackburn with Darwen

  150

  5

  3.3

  6

  4.0

  Burnley

  8,300

  1,625

  19.6

  1,977

  23.8

  Chorley

  8,755

  811

  9.3

  961

  11.0

  Fylde

  5,040

  386

  7.7

  412

  8.2

  Hyndburn

  8,094

  1,322

  16.3

  1,649

  20.4

  Lancaster

  10,661

  1,520

  14.3

  1,871

  17.5

  Pendle

  7,904

  1,487

  18.8

  1,753

  22.2

  Preston

  12,062

  1,991

  16.5

  2,383

  19.8

  Ribble Valley

  4,791

  171

  3.6

  201

  4.2

  Rossendale

  6,044

  838

  13.9

  942

  15.6

  South Ribble

  8,919

  754

  8.5

  822

  9.2

  West Lancashire

  9,804

  1,375

  14.0

  1,578

  16.1

  Wigan

  Wyre

  8,260

  887

  10.7

  1,020

  12.3

  Maintained secondary schools

  Lancashire local education authority

  76,412

  8,819

  11.5

  10,749

  14.1

  Blackburn with Darwen

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Burnley

  6,476

  1,094

  16.9

  1,488

  23.0

  Chorley

  5,757

  474

  8.2

  575

  10.0

  Fylde

  3,831

  244

  6.4

  309

  8.1

  Hyndburn

  5,052

  820

  16.2

  968

  19.2

  Lancaster

  9,037

  868

  9.6

  1,146

  12.7

  Pendle

  5,813

  1,062

  18.3

  1,250

  21.5

  Preston

  7,236

  1,199

  16.6

  1,340

  18.5

  Ribble Valley

  5,074

  263

  5.2

  291

  5.7

  Rossendale

  5,475

  643

  11.7

  768

  14.0

  South Ribble

  8,687

  666

  7.7

  808

  9.3

  West Lancashire

  6,107

  813

  13.3

  1,013

  16.6

  Wigan

  922

  133

  14.4

  133

  14.4

  Wyre

  6,945

  540

  7.8

  660

  9.5

  1 Includes middle schools as deemed.

  2 Includes dually registered pupils and boarding pupils.

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census
  908W
  regulations. The total cost of the production and distribution of this guidance for schools and LEAs was £25,986.26. The average cost for each issue of guidance was 10 pence.

  School Meals
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the provision of school meals by Lancashire county council; and how many meals are served each day in(a) high schools and (b) primary schools (i) in Lancashire and (ii) in each Lancashire district. [148225]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  From April 2000, funding for school meals was delegated to all secondary schools. Primary and special schools can opt for delegation. All schools in Lancashire have the budget for school meals delegated to them, and have individual service level agreements with Lancashire County Commercial Services: schools can buy back in to the local authorities school meal service if they wish to do so.

  This Department does not collect information on the take-up of paid meals. However, the attached table shows the take-up of free school meals in each Lancashire district.

  School-leavers (Qualifications)
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many pupils left school in 2003 with no GCSEs; [147443]

  (2) how many pupils left school with fewer than five GCSEs at Grade G in each year since 1997. [147444]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is as follows:

  The number of 15-year-old pupils who left school in 2003 with no GCSEs is 32,590.

  The number of 15-year-old pupils who left school with fewer than five GCSEs at grades A*-G is shown in the table.

  Academic year

  Number of l5-year-old pupils with less than 5+ A*-G

  1997

  79,602

  1998

  71,742

  1999

  66,884

  2000

  64,178

  2001

  67,044

  2002

  67,065

  2003

  69,851

  Specialist Schools
  Jon Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to secure match funding for specialist schools in highly deprived former coalfield areas; and if he will make a statement. [147452]

  Mr. Miliband
  We acknowledge that for some schools in deprived former coalfield areas, raising the £50,000 sponsorship required to make a specialist school application can be difficult.

  The Department grant-aids the Specialist Schools Trust (SST) and the Youth Sport Trust to assist schools with raising sponsorship. We have also introduced a 'Partnership Fund' to provide support to schools that can demonstrate that sustained efforts to raise the full amount of sponsorship have been unsuccessful. The fund is administered by the SST in accordance with the Department's criteria. In the October 2003 specialist school application round, 13 schools in coalfield areas received a contribution from this fund.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many Lancashire schools have applied for specialist status; and how many were successful. [148226]

  Mr. Miliband
  There are 12 local education authorities (LEAs), which cover the county of Lancashire. The information requested is set out in the table by LEA.

  Local education authority

  Number of schools which have applied for specialist status

  Number of schools which applied successfully

  Blackburn with Darwen

  5

  4

  Blackpool

  5

  4

  Bolton

  12

  9

  Bury

  8

  4

  Lancashire

  63

  33

  Manchester

  18

  11

  910W

  Local education authority

  Number of schools which have applied for specialist status

  Number of schools which applied successfully

  Oldham

  8

  6

  Rochdale

  6

  5

  Salford

  6

  3

  Tameside

  13

  5

  Trafford

  17

  12

  Wigan

  19

  12

  Total

  180

  108

  Applications from schools in the October 2003 specialist school application round are currently being assessed. A list of successful schools from this round will be not be announced until the end of January and have therefore not been included in the list of successful applications.

  Teaching Assistants
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what assessment he has made of the effects of the increase in teaching assistants covering non-contact time with classes; [147544]

  (2) what percentage of classroom teaching was covered by classroom assistants without teaching professionals being present in the class in 2002/03. [147545]

  Mr. Miliband
  It is up to head teachers to determine how they deploy teachers and teaching assistants in their schools taking account of current regulations and guidance. Information about how teaching assistants' time is spent is not held centrally.

  Standards of attainment are rising and the quality of teaching is the best ever. And teaching assistants are playing their part in raising standards. A recent project has demonstrated the positive impact of teaching assistants on standards. In 18 of the largest LEAs, additional provision and training for teaching assistants was provided last year for around 30 per cent. of their Year 6 classes. Results front the 2003 Key Stage 2 tests shows that performance in participating schools appears to have improved by 3 per cent. points more than the national average for English and 2 per cent. points for maths.

  Tuition Fees
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what legislation was implemented between 1997 and 2001 preventing the introduction of university top-up fees. [147842]

  Alan Johnson
  The Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 section 26 imposes conditions upon tuition fees for full-time undergraduates. Section 26(5) provides that the amount of tuition fee that can be charged should not exceed the maximum amount of tuition fee grant. The Student Support regulations, which are laid annually, set out the maximum amount of tuition fee grant. In 2003/04, the maximum amount of tuition fee grant is £1,125.

  University Bursaries
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what the income levels will be at which students will qualify for the receipt of university bursaries; [148209]
  911W
  (2) what his policy is on the indexation of family income levels at which students will qualify to receive (a) grants and fee remission and (b)university bursaries. [148210]

  Alan Johnson
  The family income thresholds are uprated annually to take account of inflation. The uprating is based on the Treasury's forecast in October each year of the forecast rise in the Retail Price Index (less Mortgage Interest Repayments).

  As regards university bursaries, the level and type of financial support will differ between institutions. However, as a minimum, we want to ensure, via the Director for Fair Access that no student who qualifies for maximum state support, in terms of the new higher education grant and the existing fee remission grant, has to take on additional debt as a result of higher fees. The director will expect more from institutions with further to go in widening participation.

  University Funding
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how much of the total sum of new funding that the Government believes universities in England require is required by universities in(a) the South East region and (b) London; [148033]
  912W
  (2) how much of the total sum of new funding that the Government believes universities in England require is required by universities in the North West region; [148034]

  (3) how much of the total sum of new funding that the Government believes universities in England require is required for (a) physical science, (b) arts and (c) social science courses. [148047]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The funding for higher education in England between 2002–03 and 2005–06 is set out in the White Paper 'the future of higher education' (Cm 5735). There are increases of over 6 per cent. Above inflation in each year so that by 2005–06 the overall funding reaches almost £10 billion.

  The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) allocate funds to higher education institutions according to a formula which takes account of the number and type of students at the institution, the courses they are taking, and other factors relating to the institution such as whether it has old or historic buildings. The funds are paid to institutions as a block grant and it is for the institution to decide how to spend the money.

  Under our proposals for variable fees, it will be for institutions to decide the level of any fee which they charge, taking account of a number of factors, including their financial needs.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Terrorism Act
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  I am pleased to say that Lord Carlile of Berriew QC has completed the report on the operation of part VII of the Act, which will be laid before the House today.

  Language Analysis Pilot
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes)
  I refer to the statement that I made on 21 October 2003 about the outcome of the pilot testing of language analysis for selected asylum applicants who claimed to be nationals of Afghanistan, Somalia and Sri Lanka. My statement quoted a figure of 21 per cent. for the detection of false Somali nationals and it is necessary to clarify this finding. As the summary of findings of the three-country language analysis pilot which was placed in the Library of the House showed 12 per cent. of those tested who claimed to be from Somalia were found to be false nationals. The figure of 21 per cent. related to the Somali applicants who were tested and were found not to be from the region or tribe they claimed. Overall, 34 per cent. of the claimed Somali applicants who were tested were either not from Somalia or not from the region or tribe that they had claimed. I apologise for any confusion that may have been caused by the presentation of the figures in my earlier statement.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears)
  On 27 February 2003, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced,Official Report, cols. 32WS–36WS, the Government's response to the recommendations of the independent review ream, appointed the previous September to take a fundamental look at the operation of the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB). One of their recommendations was that the Capita contract should be renegotiated to align the contract to the changed and evolving circumstances that had occurred since the original contract was signed back in August 2000. Following a thorough and constructive period of negotiation, the Criminal Records Bureau and Capita signed a revised contract on 22 December 2003.

  The revised contract is a major step forward for the CRB and represents a substantial improvement over the previous terms. The revised contract now provides for:
  as a result of recent and planned efficiency savings, from October 2004, a significant reduction in the price paid to Capita for processing each disclosure application;
  42WS
  the ability to achieve year-on-year operational cost reductions with further incentives to reduce operational costs over the lifetime of the contact; any such cost savings would be reflected in further price reductions;
  pricing levels matched to guaranteed volumes, agreed on a bi-annual basis;
  additional contractual performance measures including both qualitative and quantitative standards to enhance further the Disclosure service;
  far greater clarity of roles and responsibilities within the partnership;
  incentives to allow Capita to further enhance the IT and other technical systems to meet evolving process and output requirements;
  the implementation of recommendations made by independent consultants on the IT system;
  an improved agreement in respect of financial penalties for failing to meet agreed performance standards which have been revised to meet the evolving circumstances that had occurred since the original contract was signed back in August 2000;
  a one off payment to Capita of £3.6 million in final settlement of the earlier agreed contract change which provided for the introduction of the blank application form. The payment covered the additional cost of processing the blank application forms in the period February to September 2003.

  Capita's part in the re-negotiation underlined their commitment to this partnership and to this important public service, it also reinforced our belief that it was preferable to continue with the partnership if at all possible. The partnership approach, with continued 'open book' accounting, and commitment shown during this re-negotiation augurs well for the future.

  The CRB is now on a sound footing and through the revised contract will now have far greater flexibility to improve and develop the Disclosure service over the coming years.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Electoral Registration
  The Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire (Mr. Nick Raynsford)
  As the Government reaffirmed in its White Paper Response—"The Government's Response to the Electoral Commission's report: The Shape of Elections to Come—A Strategic Evaluation of the 2003 Electoral Pilot Schemes" (CM5975)—we are committed to developing multi-channelled, e-enabled elections, culminating in an e-enabled general election sometime after 2006. As a further step to achieving this goal we are today, in partnership with the Department for Constitutional Affairs including the Scotland Office, launching a new project to modernise the electoral registration process in Great Britain and which will lead to the registration infrastructure that can underpin multi-channelled, e-enabled elections.

  This project—CORE (Co-ordinated Online Register of Electors)—will be in two phases. The first will standardise local electronic electoral registers across the country and make them fully interoperable regardless of the local system in use. The second phase will allow authorised users to access local registration data centrally and will support a multi-channelled, e-enabled general election. The project replaces the earlier proposed LASER project to modernise the registration

  43WS
  process, which was to have been led by the Improvement and Development Agency. Copies of a project outline, which the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is publishing today is available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Throughout the project we will be working closely with local government, the registration software suppliers, and other key stakeholders. Government are providing £12 million Capital Modernisation Fund resources to meet the costs of the project, and we will shortly be consulting local government and others on the details for taking forward the project, including details of the funding arrangements.

  We are committed to making voting more accessible and straightforward for the electorate and to allow people more flexibility in where and when they vote. This project aims to improve the quality of electoral registers and ensure that accurate and timely registration will support the needs of the electorate and authorised users and help facilitate voting in the future. It is an essential element of our electoral modernisation agenda.

  Regional and Local Referendums
  The Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire (Mr. Nick Raynsford)
  I have today published for consultation a paper discussing the provisions to be made for the Electoral Commission to pay counting officers for the expenses they incur in connection with the regional assembly referendums and the associated local government referendums. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister expects to hold the referendums in autumn.

  Copies of the documents are available in the Libraries of the House. They will also be available on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website:

  http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_control/ documents/contentservertemplate/odpm_index.hcst?n=4095&1=2

  This consultation, and the two launched on 18th December concerned with the combination of the regional and local referendums and on registration and spending limits respectively, will run until 16th February. We would be very grateful for all comments on these proposals.

  Planning Appeals
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)
  When the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister introduced new procedures in August 2000 to improve the handling of planning appeals we said that their operation would be monitored and reviewed. The outcome of the most recent review has suggested a need for some changes to be made.

  There was concern expressed during the course of the review by a wide range of stakeholders about the perceived inequity for third parties taking part in the appeals process. It was considered anomalous that the rules do not allow third parties to comment on the appeal statements made by the main parties. In order to address this inequity and more fully involve all members of the community in the planning process, we intend to conduct a consultation on proposals to amend the rules for written representations, hearings and inquiries
  44WS
  procedures. The proposed amendment would allow third parties that have commented at the 6-week stage a further opportunity to comment on main parties' appeal statements at the 9-week stage of an appeal.

  We shall also be amending the rules to take account of drafting amendments suggested by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and to correct minor technical anomalies.

TRANSPORT

  Night Flying Restrictions
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty)
  On 8 April 2003,Official Report, cols 9–10WS, we announced publication of a consultation paper on night flying restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. The present night restrictions regime for those airports applies until 31 October 2004: the consultation paper explained our proposal to defer our intended review of those night restrictions and to continue the present regime for a further year. The consultation period ended on 11 July 2003.

  Briefly, the reasons for our proposal were:
  (a) that it seemed wise to defer consultation on a long term night noise policy until the responses to the consultation on The future development of air transport in the United Kingdom: South East, including views about the appropriate review cycle for night restrictions, had been considered and the air transport White Paper published, thus enabling all options to be considered in the light of the wider policy context;
  (b) that it seemed preferable to wait until we had the judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on a case concerning the 1993 night restrictions regime at Heathrow before reviewing our objectives and bringing forward detailed proposals for a further night restrictions regime;
  (c) that European Directive 2002/30/EC requires us to describe the environmental objective(s) for each airport concerned, before proposing and assessing what restrictions would be appropriate in order to achieve those objectives, and we considered it preferable to establish those objectives in the context of the White Paper.

  The proposal to extend the current night restrictions regime for one further year indicated that all the common arrangements—the hours of the restrictions, the system for classifying aircraft and other detailed aspects of the regime—should continue unchanged until the end of the summer season 2005 (30 October 2005).

  We also proposed that the movement limits and noise quotas for the winter season 2004–05 and for the summer season 2005 should remain the same as those for winter 2003–04 and summer 2004 respectively at each of the three airports.

  The consultation paper also
  (a) commenced consultation on some of the general principles and policies underlying the night restrictions; in particular, the present policy of having common arrangements at all three airports and the broad issues relating to the possible extension of the night quota period (currently 2330–600);
  (b) explained how we intend to take forward the results of two reviews relating to the classification of aircraft for night restrictions purposes;

  45WS
  (c) explained how we intend to take forward the results of a separate review of the departure noise limits and the related noise monitoring arrangements.

  The consultation responses encompassed the full range of interests, including airport consultative committees, local authorities and parish councils, environmental and other groups and individuals from around all three airports, plus airlines and aviation bodies. The decision that I am announcing today relates only to the arrangements for 2004–05.

  After careful consideration of all relevant points made in the responses, we have decided to extend the night restrictions regime at all three airports as proposed. The reasons for doing so remain largely as set out in the consultation paper and summarised in this statement, and were accepted by many of those responding to the consultation. We welcomed the judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, received three days before the consultation period closed. That judgment clears the way for our forthcoming review of policy on night flights at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted.

  There was a wide but not universal acceptance among those who responded specifically on the proposal to extend the current regime for a further year, that this was appropriate, although a substantial number of local authorities and local groups from around all three airports indicated that they want a reduction in night flights, or a complete ban, in the longer term. There was some comment on the size of the movement limits and noise quotas for 2004–05, especially from those commenting on the findings of the main technical review about the classification of aircraft for night restrictions purposes.

  The issue that has attracted attention from this review is the finding that the version of the Boeing 747 most commonly operating at Heathrow during the restricted hours was noisier in normal operations than its certificated noise levels by the noise certification procedures of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). There are many reasons why monitored noise levels will not match certificated noise levels, particularly because certification testing is carried out under strictly controlled meteorological and acoustical conditions and using defined flight path procedures which may differ from those used in-service. However, we have drawn the results of the work to the attention of international experts currently examining the ICAO noise certification requirements to ensure that they reflect modern operating practices and conditions.

  Some consultees suggested or implied there should be an immediate substantial cut in the noise quotas if these aircraft were not reclassified. The Government does not accept immediate action would be appropriate. This is a matter which the Government believes should be considered in the context of the new arrangements and requirements which flow from Directive 2002/30/EC (now transposed into domestic law: SI 2003 No. 1742) when the wide ranging review takes place.

  At Gatwick and Stansted the mix of aircraft operating at night is different, as are issues relating to the size of the noise quotas. The 1999 decision included small progressions (downwards at Gatwick, upwards at Stansted) in the noise quotas over the five years of the night restrictions regime. In the consultation paper we
  46WS
  indicated that we had considered whether to continue these progressions for a further year but that, as the progressions were small and the services operating at night were in a considerable state of flux, we believed it better to have no change between the last year of that scheme and a one year extension. None of those who responded to the consultation paper suggested an increase in the quotas for Stansted but at Gatwick some local consultees suggested cutting the movements limits and noise quotas which are currently under used, particularly in winter. Given the difficulty in the current consultation round of establishing whether and to what extent any cut might be appropriate, the Government remains of the view that the status quo should be maintained pending a full consideration of all the issues.

  We have therefore decided that, at each of the three airports, the movement limits and noise quotas for the winter season 2004–05 and the summer season 2005 shall be the same as those for winter 2003–04 and summer 2004 respectively. These are:

  WINTER SEASON 2004–05

  Movements Limit

  Noise Quota

  Heathrow

  2550

  4140

  Gatwick

  5250

  6640

  Stansted

  5000

  3550

  SUMMER SEASON 2005

  Movements Limit

  Noise Quota

  Heathrow

  3250

  5610

  Gatwick

  11200

  9000

  Stansted

  7000

  4950

  This decision maintains the balance struck between the conflicting interests in 10 June 1999, Official Report, cols 378–79. We are satisfied that this will remain the appropriate balance for 2004–05 whilst we carry out the further review of night flying restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted.

  Copies of all the responses, except where the author has requested confidentiality, are available for six months for inspection by prior appointment at the DfT Library and Information Centre, Ashdown House, 123 Victoria Street, London SW1E 6DE.

  I am placing in the House Library a summary of the responses, including points relating to the general principles and policies underlying the night restrictions and to the ways in which we intend to take forward the results of the reviews relating to the classification of aircraft for night restrictions purposes and of the separate review of the departure noise limits and the related noise monitoring arrangements. The responses on these other matters will be taken into account in developing proposals for the next night restrictions regime for consultation in due course. The summary of responses is also available on the Department's website: www.aviation.dft.gov.uk

DEFENCE

  Gurkha MAS Policy
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  On 4 June 2003, it was announced that the Ministry of Defence would
  47WS
  undertake a review of Gurkha Married Accompanied Service (MAS) policy. The aim of the Review was to consider whether the current arrangements were satisfactory and what changes, if any, would be necessary. In examining possible changes the Review team are also considering whether any of the special circumstances of Gurkha employment justify MAS restrictions and, if so, to what extent.

  The Review team is studying a number of options, the detailed work of which is not yet complete. I had originally hoped to announce the outcome of the review to the House by the end of 2003. I anticipate being in a position to make a full and substantive announcement on the outcome of the review to the House later in the year.

  Armed Forces Pensions and Compensation
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Capllin)
  The House of Commons Defence Committee published its report on armed forces pensions and compensation on 16 December 2003 (HC 96). The Government's response is published today in a Command Paper (Cm 6109), ahead of the second reading debate on the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill on Tuesday 20 January. Copies are available in the Vote Office from 12 o'clock.

  Normandy Landings (Commemoration)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  I am pleased to announce that Her Majesty The Queen and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have accepted invitations from the President of France to attend commemorations of the 60th anniversary of the Normandy Landings in France in June this year. Further information about the programme, including attendance by other members of The Royal Family and representatives of the Government, will be issued in due course.

TREASURY

  Museums
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng)
  The"Securing the Best for our Museums: Private Giving and Government Support" report has been published today and copies are available in the Libraries
  48WS
  of both Houses and in the Vote Office. Copies will also be sent to the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales.

  I appointed Sir Nicholas Goodison to lead a review of the effectiveness and efficiency of support to regional and national museums and galleries to help them acquire works of art and culture of distinction that might otherwise be sold abroad, and to make those items accessible to the public. This review was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Budget 2003. The review is now complete and the "Securing the Best for Our Museums: Private Giving and Government Support" report contains Sir Nicholas Goodison's findings and recommendations.

  The Government will carefully consider the recommendations ahead of Budget 2004 and as part of the 2004 Spending Review.

  Tax Avoidance
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo)
  Legislation to prevent tax avoidance using transactions in strips of Government bonds is to be included in Finance Bill 2004. The legislation applies to holdings of such strips where the profits or losses are chargeable to income tax and addresses the artificial creation of losses that can be set against other income. The changes will have effect from today.

  A copy of today's Inland Revenue News Release giving the relevant background to this measure is being deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and is also accessible on the Inland Revenue's website: http:// www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Oil and Gas Production
  The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms)
  I am pleased to inform the House that I am today offering ATP Oil and Gas (UK) Ltd. an oil and gas production licence on seaward block 2/15 in the northern North Sea.

  The successful applicant will have a fixed period in which to decide whether or not to accept the offers.

  The DTI undertook an environmental screening assessment to ensure compliance with environmental legislation, and concluded that
  "the screening had not identified any environmental concern that would prejudice the offering of block 2/15 for licence".

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIR MAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St Albans.

Universities: Medical Services
Lord Butler of Brockwell Lord Butler of Brockwell asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they propose to ensure that changes in National Health Service funding do not adversely affect provision of medical services in universities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, the new contract for general medical services has been negotiated between the NHS Confederation and the General Practitioners Committee of the BMA. It will provide practices on most campuses, with the same method of funding and earning opportunities that will be available to all general medical services practices. A minimum practice income guarantee for basic general medical services will be available to prevent financial instability.
Lord Butler of Brockwell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that the proposed capitation rates for young people do not make adequate allowance for the special needs of university students, many of whom are living away from home for the first time and who, as a matter of fact, make greater demands on their GPs than is the norm for their age group? In particular, the capitation rates make inadequate provision for the Government's other admirable initiatives on health, mental health, sex education and the prevention of drug abuse. Will the Minister please give an undertaking that the capitation rates are adjusted to make adequate allowance for the needs of university students?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the new formula for general practice remuneration has been designed to address historic inequalities in funding primary care. The contract, and the basis of the contract, was voted on by GPs themselves. Some 79 per cent of the GPs who voted accepted the new contract basis, and that was based on a 70 per cent turnout. So we are not at this point in the business of introducing new changes into the format of the contract. It will, however, be kept under review.
Under the new arrangements, primary care trusts have been given a duty to ensure that they can enter into specialist contracts—in areas of high student population, for example. If there was a particular need for sexual health, mental health or substance abuse services, the PCT would make specialist contract arrangements for those services.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I declare an interest as a patient of the Imperial College health centre. I asked a Question on this subject on 8 May last year and the Answer I was given concerned the minimum practice income guarantee. I have now looked into the matter further, and it turns out that this will be based on statistics data gathered for three quarters of a year. This will include the summer months, when the academic practices are quieter and GPs and their staff tend to go on leave to fit in with the efficiency of the practice. More seriously, there will be an adverse effect on patient number records: students who leave will come off the list in July and replacement students will not return to augment the list until November. This will create a very artificial situation. In addition, capitation will be greatly reduced by all those months.
Noble Lords: Question!
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, the Minister talks about opportunities for earning money from services such as sexual health. Westminster primary care trust has already said that it cannot possibly do that as it will not have enough funds, so that option is not available. Will the Minister tell me what specific measures he will take to deal with this unique situation and to see that the strange situation of capitation is taken into consideration in the present negotiations?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I think I have made it clear that we are not revisiting the basis of this contract, which has been negotiated over 18 months between the NHS Confederation and the BMA's General Practitioners Committee. I can see that the noble Baroness is concerned about this, but her Question was quite long, so I hope I may be allowed a couple of sentences to reply. The new contract is meant to rebalance remuneration so that those GPs with the highest workloads and the highest prevalence of: illness in their practices are suitably remunerated. As I said, the system will be kept under review. It is down to PCTs to contract for specialist services. It is worth reminding the noble Baroness that PCTs now have at their disposal 75 per cent of NHS expenditure for commissioning particular services.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, may I, in declaring an interest as chief executive of Universities UK, reinforce the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell? I appreciate that the situation will be kept under review, but it is worth remembering that the turnover rates among students on campus in GP practices is 25 per cent to 30 per cent, whereas the average for most areas is 10 to 15 per cent. I hope that this can be taken into account, because there is real concern that this will have an impact on the staffing of medical centres.
Lord Warner: My Lords, the system will be kept under review by an independent UK-based group of experts. But there is no getting away from the fact that we have revamped this contract so that doctors who have the

675
heaviest workloads with the highest prevalence of illness are reimbursed accordingly. With the full co-operation of the profession, we are remedying historical anomalies.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, will the Minister give us assurances on the mental health issues? Many PCTs already find it quite difficult to meet the demands in their areas for support for mental health problems. Students under stress often raise new problems. Can we be assured that they will be given the long-term support that they need?
Lord Warner: My Lords, it is down to the PCTs at the local level to assess the medical needs of their communities and enter into the contracts that meet those needs. That will include mental health. As I said, there is now a duty on PCTs to do that work and ensure that doctors and services are appropriately geared up for those particular service needs.
Lord Butler of Brockwell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is not an adequate answer to say that the great majority of GPs have supported the contract, because this is a specialist need in special circumstances? I should like to underline the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, that it is also a cop-out to say that the primary care trusts will provide for this. They simply do not have the money to do so.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I gently say to the noble Lord that the Government are increasing NHS expenditure by 7 per cent in real terms over a five-year period. That is an unprecedented historical high. It is simply not true that there are not the resources in the NHS to buy the services that are needed. As I have said on several occasions, it is down to the people at the local level to meet the service needs of their particular area with the resources available. The contract was negotiated with the profession over 18 months. It takes account of the needs of doctors who work in university areas, and the profession has overwhelmingly supported this contract.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a lot of concern about this question? He said that the contract is continuously under review—as is everything else. Will he give us a time span—and review it again in six months?
Lord Warner: My Lords, we have already agreed with the profession to carry out a review in October after six months' experience of the new contract.

Olympic Games 2012: London Bid
11.15 a.m.
Lord Moynihan Lord Moynihan asked Her Majesty's Government:
What further developments they propose in support of London's bid to host the Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2012.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): My Lords, the first stage of the bid—the applicant questionnaire—was delivered to the International Olympic Committee to meet today's deadline of 15 January. The Government will continue to work closely with all others involved to develop the outline proposals in the questionnaire.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, a year ago there was unanimous support in a debate in this Chamber urging the Government to support a London Olympic bid in 2012. Will the Minister convey congratulations from these Benches and, I am sure, from across the House, to the bid committee on their success in meeting this week's IOC deadline with professionalism, commitment and dedication? Will the Government match that commitment today by announcing that the direction of the tax take on the proposed Olympic lottery game will go to the London Olympics and will not, as proposed, be pocketed by the Chancellor for other purposes? Will the Government also announce the launch of an Olympic sports lottery game this summer at the time of the Athens games to maximise revenue both for our able-bodied and disabled sporting organisations, which is permitted by the International Olympic Committee?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for his opening comments. I will indeed convey those congratulations. Indeed, I hope that he will have an opportunity to do that himself when he is present with others at the launch of the application.
On his further points, he will know that it was decided that there should be a Treasury take of 12 per cent on the National Lottery under his government, in 1994. It was intended to be revenue neutral—to compensate the Exchequer for the loss of revenue from other taxable activities from which lottery money had been diverted.
On the point about the start of the specific Olympic lottery, he will know that the International Olympic Committee does not permit a lottery of this kind for the benefit of the bid to be started before a candidate has been chosen.
Lord Addington: My Lords, will the Minister assure us on behalf of the Government that the whole of Whitehall—indeed, the whole of the London government structure—is fully co-ordinated and involved in preparing for this bid? Furthermore, will he assure us that he will study the process as it proceeds so that we can build a model for future cross-government and local government co-operation that could be used for any future bids for games or cultural events? That would ensure that we would have another substantial gain from the process of bidding for the Olympics.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can certainly give the assurance that there has been a cross-Whitehall group to provide advice and assistance to London 2012.

677
However, I can go further—there have been a series of meetings between senior representatives of the Government, the Mayor of London, the British Olympic Association and London 2012. This has been an example of good co-operation. Developing a model for the future is certainly an interesting idea. However, it is our intention to win this application and not to have to enter another Olympic application for several years after 2012.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I return to the Answer that the Minister kindly gave me, and ask him to reconsider both answers. First, with a hypothecated game, which requires separate primary legislation, as the legislation is going through another place and will come to this House, would he not agree that it is perfectly possible to ensure that the tax take goes directly to the games? Indeed, our Benches would support that if an amendment to the Bill were tabled. We believe that it is essential, and that the public who bought tickets would wish that to be the case.
Secondly, we will be calling for a game to be launched this summer, at the time of the Athens games, under the legislation that the Government are bringing to Parliament. Does the Minister accept that, as long as the game is not exclusively for the purposes of the London 2012 hid but is for Olympic sports and disabled sporting organisations, it can be launched at the time of the Athens Olympics this summer with the full backing of the IOC?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am tempted to give the same answers to the same questions. On the issue of the Treasury take, it ought to be said that it would be a difficult precedent to sustain if we were to say that one section of the good causes that benefit from the lottery should be affected by the 12 per cent Treasury take and other parts should not. There would be a good deal of indignation on that score.
The same answer applies to the noble Lord's second question. I believe that he is saying that we might start to collect money for Olympic-related purposes, and I agree with him that the International Olympic Committee would probably accept that interpretation. However, what would happen if we did not win, for example? What would be the reaction of those who expect to benefit from the other good causes, which have a good deal of support in this House and in the country?

Medical Schools: Professorial Vacancies
11.21 a.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as president of the University of Wales College of Medicine.
The Question was as follows:
678
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many professorial appointments are currently vacant in United Kingdom medical schools.
Lord Warner: My Lords, the Government do not collect the information that the noble Lord has requested. However, we are aware that the Council of Heads of Medical Schools is undertaking a UK-wide survey of the number of posts and vacancies, which will be published soon.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will know the outcome of that survey, which shows 84 vacancies among professorships in medical schools in the UK. He will also be aware of the recent report in the Times that medical schools are short of some 80 professors. That is the equivalent of one in 10 of the professorships in the 24 British medical schools. The percentage of vacancies among senior lecturers and so on is even higher. What is the explanation for that? How do the Government account for those vacancies, and what will be the effect on the training of medical students who have increased by substantial numbers since 1998?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I do not have officially the information that the noble Lord has cited. The council carrying out the survey is an independent body, and it is for the council to put the information in the public arena. I understand that the figure that he has cited has some familiarity to me, but it is not the formal figure that the council has put in the public arena.
It is worth reminding the noble Lord that, as he said, the medical school student intake has risen from just over 5,000 in 1997–98 to more than 6, 700 in 2002–03. The money for that has come from the Higher Education Funding Council. When institutions have bid for that money to increase their student intake, they have all given assurances that they can recruit the staff necessary to carry out their obligations.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, is not the problem a reflection of the fact that clinical academic medicine is no longer such an attractive proposition, and that for many it is becoming very unattractive? Is it not also the case that the report from the Academy of Medical Sciences, of which I happen to be vice-president, will go some way to remedying some of those problems, if the proposals are taken up?
Lord Warner: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. There have been some long-standing problems with regard to clinical medicine but, under this Government, the National Clinician Scientist Award Scheme was introduced in response to the Saville report to tackle disincentives in this area. Sixty-five awards have been made on a five-year personal basis to stimulate recruitment in this area.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, how will the new fee arrangements proposed by the Government affect medical students? Given that clinical medicine is no longer such an attractive profession and that the

679
report in the Times indicated that the problem arises because clinical academics are moving into work for the NHS, surely the problem will be exacerbated if students have accumulated a very large debt over the many years that they have to train.
Lord Warner: My Lords, the Government's position on the future of higher education is set out in the White Paper and will be pursued through the Higher Education Bill. Department of Health Ministers have made it clear that they will, if necessary, take measures to ensure that any increase in the level of tuition fees will not have an adverse impact on the supply, retention, diversity or quality of students undertaking medical training.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, the Government gave an assurance that they would ensure parity between clinical academics and NHS consultant posts. How far have they got with that?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I understand that there is parity. It is worth bearing in mind that the BMA announced, on 12 January, that an overall majority of clinical academics voted for the new contract for consultants.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the Minister tell us how much a professor of medicine gets paid? Could he tell us how much the Government supply to individuals to bring them up and to make them take the appointment?
Lord Warner: My Lords, those are matters for individual universities. I shall make some inquiries about the average figure and write to the noble Lord.

Guantanamo Bay: British Detainees
11.27 a.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare a professional interest as co-counsel acting pro bono for 175 Members of both our Houses in an amicus role before the American Supreme Court.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what position they intend to adopt in the pending proceedings before the Supreme Court of the United States by British citizens detained in Guantanamo Bay to protect their basic civil rights.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the pending proceedings in the United States Supreme Court concern the jurisdiction of the United States civil courts in relation to Guantanamo detainees, not their rights to a fair trial. The question of their civil rights that arises relates to their right to be heard before an American civil court. The Government do not wish to
680
prejudice discussions between ourselves and the United States in relation to the British detainees in Guantanamo Bay. We are keeping the matter under review.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. I understand exactly what she has said, but does she agree that it is in the public interest of the inhabitants of both our nations if the due process of law is applied by the United States courts to fill what our English Court of Appeal has described as the "legal black hole" that now exists in relation to the detainees in Guantanamo? Does she also agree that the concept of the due process of law is deep-rooted in our Anglo-American legal heritage, and that it is very important in terms of the wider interests of diplomacy that we demonstrate to the wider world that we apply that process on both sides of the Atlantic, even to suspected terrorists or people designated as enemy combatants?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Government always espouse the importance of the rule of law, no matter which country we are talking about. As we have previously discussed in your Lordships' House, one major difficulty about the Guantanamo Bay detainees has been the question of their status. We discussed this on 15 October, and the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, said that it was a difficult situation that needed to be resolved. The question now before the United States Supreme Court is a matter of United States constitutional law. The Supreme Court of the United States must decide by due process what is right on this question of jurisdiction.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, if, as is rumoured, some of these detainees who are British nationals are returned to this country, the Minister will agree, like all of us, that they could not conceivably be held without charges. Has the Minister heard the suggestion in some legal circles that some of these detainees, by taking up arms against this country as British nationals, could be charged with the ancient crime of treason? Treason can be committed on foreign soil, as all precedents in the law courts here prove. Either way, will she assure us that the appropriate authorities are finding out now, in anticipation of this move, what the alleged crimes of these British nationals are, and are preparing the ground before these individuals arrive back here and, as a result of no charges, are immediately released? That would raise serious questions for terrorism and public security.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I have heard a number of suggestions about what might be done. Some of those suggestions are fanciful; others are serious. The noble Lord is right to draw our attention to the issue of security. There are important issues concerning the fair trial, if it was to take place, of any of the Guantanamo Bay detainees. There are also important issues about security. In discussing this question, it is wrong for us to focus entirely on one of

681
those sets of issues and to ignore the important issues that the noble Lord has raised. I am grateful to him for doing that.
I expect that he will be anticipating the answer that the question of any charges is clearly not an issue for Her Majesty's Government. I am sure that the appropriate authorities will look at a whole range of issues, but that is not a question that is for me or for any of my colleagues as Ministers to decide. In this country we have the appropriate separation of powers.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, negotiations have been going on for months between Her Majesty's Ministers and the American authorities. Will the Minister say whether the Government have yet succeeded in obtaining evidence against the British citizens and former residents, which might enable them to be charged with crimes? Have the Government obtained the intelligence from the American authorities that would enable proper precautions to be taken in this country when these people are returned to this country, which 1 hope will be soon?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the individuals involved have been detained for a long time—about two years. The two-year point passed just a few days ago. However, we have not been in negotiations for those two years; we have been in negotiations since the designations were made over Mr Abassi and Mr Begg earlier this year. I want to stress to the noble Lord that at no point have those negotiations been about the evidence. They have been about trying to secure a fair trial. The question of evidence is not a matter that would be appropriate for the Government to be negotiating on. As the noble Lord would expect, I am not able to discuss matters of intelligence from the Dispatch Box. I remind him that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, when asked in an interview with Sir David Frost on 11 January 2003 about the length of time that it has taken, said that he hoped that one way or another the issue would be resolved in the next few weeks.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I must declare that I am one of the 175 Members of both Houses on whose behalf my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill is acting. Is the Minister aware that the USA has applied its environmental protection laws to the base at Guantanamo Bay, with the result that the rights of endangered species of lizard are protected by American law, while the rights of prisoners, so far, are not? More importantly perhaps, what is the Government's view on the extent to which the circumstances at Guantanamo Bay comply with American obligations under international law, particularly under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the USA is a party?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord goes to the heart of the issue. I understand why he raised the fact that the United States has applied environmental law, and I take his point about the juxtaposition of lizards on the one hand and human beings on the other. This goes to the heart of
682
the issue that is going before the Supreme Court. The question that the noble Lord asked about the application of American law elsewhere, in relation to Guantanamo Bay, is the question of jurisdiction and where the legal writ runs. I am not an extremely able and clever lawyer like the noble Lord. But even I can see that the point in the noble Lord's question is highly prejudicial to the overall point that is now going before the Supreme Court and which the noble Lord and many able parliamentarians will be a party to arguing before the Supreme Court.
Lord Monson: My Lords, will the Minister confirm a claim made in yesterday's Financial Times by a director of Amnesty International that many of the Guantanamo Bay detainees were not captured in Afghanistan, but were seized in countries as far apart as Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Gambia and Pakistan, and therefore are not, strictly speaking, enemy combatants. If that is so, do any of the British detainees fall into that category?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, that goes back to the whole question of what we mean by an "unlawful combatant". An "unlawful combatant" need not necessarily be someone captured on the field of combat, it may be someone in a supporting role. I do not wish to get into this difficult question, which has not been resolved, about the definition of what we mean by "unlawful combatant". The noble Lord is right; a number of individuals have been detained in a variety of circumstances and some have claimed that the ways in which they were detained were unlawful, and some have claimed that the ways in which they were detained meant that they were mistreated. I am aware of a range of issues that are claimed by those who are detained in Guantanamo Bay.

Patents Bill [H.L.]
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Turville, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to patents. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time. —(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
11.38 a.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. —(Baroness Amos.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Transfer to Secretary of State of functions relating to Judicial Appointments Commission]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No.1:
Page 1, line 5, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
The noble Lord said: I understand that the expression "Secretary of State" in Clause 1 is intended to mean Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. I should be most grateful if the Minister would confirm that when he replies. We have no objection to the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs having these new responsibilities set out in Clause 1, as long as the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs is also the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor is constitutionally the member of the Cabinet responsible for the selection of the judiciary. He is also the head of the judiciary.
However, we are aware from various statements in your Lordships' House and from observations made in the press that there is an intention to remove the Lord Chancellor from his current constitutional responsibilities and replace him by the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs.
That is only an intention; we do not know whether it will come about. Even if it does, we do not know what will be the scope of the constitutional responsibilities of the new Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs with respect to the selection of judges. In those circumstances, we believe that our amendment to replace "Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs" by "Lord Chancellor" in Clause 1 is appropriate.
I have one other question to ask the Minister on this clause. The Explanatory Notes to the Bill state that the intention for the change in Clause 1 is to establish a Judicial Appointments Commission. Yet if your Lordships glance at the scope of the amendments to the 2002 Act in Schedule 1 to the Bill, you will see that they extend not only to Section 3(2)(b) of the 2002 Act, but also to Sections 5(3), 5(4), 5(6) and 5(7). That suggests that the Bill's scope is intended to apply not only to the appointment of the Judicial Appointments Commission but to the operation of the process of selecting judges in Northern Ireland once it is set up. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin): As the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, signalled, I am accepting these amendments. As noble Lords know, we have indicated our intention to legislate in relation to the office of the Lord Chancellor and a Bill will be introduced before long. Meanwhile, we can see both the tact and the purity of continuing to refer to the Lord Chancellor while he is still in that position. It also has the slight advantage, from my perspective, that I do not need to argue different positions in Parliament on almost sequential days. So I am happy to accept the amendment.
As to the interesting and difficult question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, the short answer is that, quite clearly, the Bill itself takes precedence over
684
the Explanatory Notes. However, I should like to reflect in a little more detail on whether I have done sufficient justice to the depth of the question in that respect.
Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful to the Minister for accepting the amendment and look forward to the consequences on Report of his further reflections.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
11.45 a.m.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I very much welcome the Government's decision to accept the amendments tabled in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Kingsland. I was unable to speak on Second Reading due to illness, but I should like to make a few short points at this stage.
I wonder whether it is possible to think of another example where a democratic government—with all the facilities that implies, and with such extensive and expert advice as they have at their disposal—have had the capacity to make such complete and utter blunders as this Government have done with two important pieces of social legislation. In my short experience in your Lordships' House I have seen a new Northern Ireland Police Bill brought back for revision within a three-year period, and I now find a new justice Bill returning within less than two years. That is bad enough, but in both cases such incompetence has followed a comprehensive review in the areas under consideration.
Worse is to come. It appears that such is the perversity of the Government that both revisions are bound only to compound the difficulties and mistakes. We already see the inadequacies of our policing legislation where crime in Northern Ireland is having an increasingly negative effect on our society. As I said, I realise that this is not a Second Reading debate. However, I think that I should make these general points now rather than doing so repeatedly throughout our consideration in Committee. I apologise and ask for your Lordships' leave.
In 2002, I cautioned against the idea of vesting in the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland any authority which until then had been within the bailiwick of the Lord Chancellor. I explained why it should not happen, I emphasised why it would fail, and I was right—we have failure. I am a layman in this area, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton is not. Today he is entrusted with a matter of national and international import. Yet, on Second Reading of the 2002 Act, he cautioned:
"Under the changes set out in the Bill, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, at the present time a unionist and a nationalist, who are two very active politicians, will have a very important part to play in appointments. They will also appoint the lay members of the Judicial Appointments Commission. There is

685
bound to be some concern that political considerations will come into play in making appointments". —[Official Report, 3/5/02; col.970.]
Bearing in mind the observation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, I ask the Minister whether political appointees will not in turn be bound to make political appointments themselves. Any clause removing reference to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister should do so on the basis that, as the review advised, no commission should be set up prior to the devolution of criminal justice. The recent election has shown how more people are becoming disappointed with the way in which the Belfast agreement is being distorted by government. Let us not add further to that concern.
If devolution of criminal justice could not happen, for reasons beyond their control, when David Trimble and Seamus Mallon were in office, is it any more likely to happen when Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams are, in theory if not in fact, vested with the responsibility?
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, pointed out almost two years ago that the review had found 77 per cent of the population expressing confidence in the fairness of judges and magistrates. Was that not a thoroughly satisfactory position? Why tinker further with what works? When this question was posed previously in respect of Messrs Trimble and Mallon we were informed that the Government were not planning for failure. Well, why are they now planning for certain failure?
I had intended to support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. Now, in accepting the concession that has been made, I reiterate an earlier point. It has not escaped me that although "Secretary of State" could in fact refer to the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, many of us believed that it could have been intended to refer to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. That point is different from the one made by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. "Secretary of State" is interchangeable, so let us cut out any duplicity and go unequivocally for "Lord Chancellor". I was about to say that I support the amendment. However, since a concession has been made, I shall not press the issue.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Transfer to Secretary of State of functions relating to Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendments Nos.2 to 22:
Page 11, line 6, leave out ""Secretary of State"" and insert ""Lord Chancellor""
Page 11, line 8, leave out ""Secretary of State"" and insert ""Lord Chancellor""
Page 11, line 11, leave out ""Secretary of State"" and insert ""Lord Chancellor""
Page 11, line 13, leave out first ""Secretary of State"" and insert ""Lord Chancellor""
Page 11 line 13, leave out second "Secretary of State"" and insert "Lord Chancellor""
Page 11, line 17, leave out ""Secretary of State"" and insert ""Lord Chancellor""
Page 11, line 21, leave out first ""Secretary of State"" and insert ""Lord Chancellor""
Page 11, line 21, leave out second "Secretary of State"" and insert "Lord Chancellor""
Page 11, line 24, leave out ""Secretary of State"" and insert ""Lord Chancellor""
Page 11, line 31, leave out ""Secretary of State"" and insert ""Lord Chancellor""
Page 11, line 33, leave out ""Secretary of State"" and insert ""Lord Chancellor""
Page 11, line 35, leave out ""Secretary of State"" and insert ""Lord Chancellor""
Page 11, line 37, leave out ""Secretary of State"" and insert ""Lord Chancellor""
Page 12, line 2, leave out ""Secretary of State"" and insert ""Lord Chancellor""
Page 12, line 4, leave out ""Secretary of State"" and insert ""Lord Chancellor""
Page 12, line 14, leave out ""Secretary of State"" and insert ""Lord Chancellor""
Page 12, line 16, leave out ""Secretary of State"" and insert ""Lord Chancellor""
Page 12, line 20, leave out ""Secretary of State"" and insert ""Lord Chancellor""
Page 12, line 22, leave out ""Secretary of State"" and insert ""Lord Chancellor""
Page 12, line 26, leave out ""Secretary of State"" and insert ""Lord Chancellor""
Page 12, line 29, leave out ""Secretary of State"" and insert ""Lord Chancellor""
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Membership of the Commission]:
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No.23:
Page 1, line 8, at end insert—
"( ) In section 3 of the 2002 Act (makeup of the Commission)—

(a)in subsection (5)(a), for "five" substitute "six", and

(b)in subsection (5)(c), for "five" substitute "four". "

The noble Lord said: The amendment returns to one of the old arguments that we debated in the 2002 Bill, now the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. Where the Government and ourselves are completely at odds over the Bill and some of the provisions it attempts to make is that we wish to keep the judicial processes in Northern Ireland depoliticised. It appears to me that Her Majesty's Government are determined to politicise them. That makes no sense.
As I mentioned at Second Reading, the Bill as drafted is totally irrelevant. One of the objectives that all parties should have is to maintain the peace process. As has been said on a number of occasions previously, by the Prime Minister and others, and my honourable friend David Lidington and myself, we have to restore the confidence of the Unionist electorate. The Bill does nothing to achieve that. That is well understood. It was well argued by me at Second Reading. I snake no apology for repeating the argument today because it is vital to our discussions in Committee and throughout the Bill.
As regards the amendments, although there is a case for a significant lay element in appointments of the judiciary to help transparency—we accept that—it is

687
vital that judiciary should be seen to be in the majority. The risk of politicisation is not merely overt: it can be insidious. Only the judges are in a position to decide who should be chosen on merit. The balance at present is tipped strongly the wrong way and should be corrected. The fact that the Lord Chief Justice and five judges could be outvoted on this commission can make no sense if one has the objective of maintaining that the judicial system be depoliticised and clear of political influences. I beg to move.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I support the amendment. With the Committee's leave, I wish to speak to my Amendment No.25. The two amendments are interrelated and could well have been grouped. I hope to save the Committee's time.
As initially with Clause 1, I regret that I am unable to support Clause 2. It is poorly thought out in terms of its practicality and its consequences. There are many areas in Northern Ireland where decisions which are reflective of the community are both desirable and essential. But there are also specialist areas where, unfortunately, it is not practicable. I shall return to that point in a moment.
An essential point I must make is that the commission will be tasked, quite nonsensically, with the appointment of every judicial office save that of four judges. The only exceptions are the Lord Chief Justice and the three Lords Justices of Appeal. Unbelievably, the 17 High Court judges are not treated as senior judicial figures within the terms of this legislation but are simply lumped together with 30 or so other categories which are listed in Schedule 1. What element of society that is permitted to be part of the lay element—and which precludes those who have ever held judicial office or have been barristers or solicitors—is able to make an informed judgment as to who may be best suited to be a High Court judge?
By virtue of my 18 years in another place and over two years in your Lordships' House I might be considered to be reasonably informed about social and community matters. However, it would be presumptuous to suggest that I would have any tangible assets that would qualify me to appoint High Court judges. I understand why Amendment No.23 seeks to go some way towards ensuring that professionals, as distinct from amateurs, form a significantly larger part of the commission.
My amendment seeks to deal in part with that requirement at new subsection (8)(b) of the 2002 Act that lay membership of the commission will be reflective of the community. I shall deal with that in some detail when we debate Clause 3.
At this stage I want to deal with the matter of competency—something that is not ensured within the Bill. When the Minister spoke at Second Reading she said:
"Merit has been and will continue to be the overriding principle for judicial appointments". —[0fficial Report, 16/12/03; col.1092.]
In the light of new subsection (8)(b) I cannot be wrong in assuming that this is not to be the primary criterion for those who will make the judicial appointments. Surely that is inconsistent.
688
I do not say that my amendment is better but I believe that it is more practical and realistic. We cannot expect people who are not appointed on merit to understand and implement the meritocratic system when it comes to the appointment of judicial persons.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I support the amendment. I reserve, with sympathy, my position on the amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis. I say "with sympathy" because I fully understand, and was influenced by, the way in which he supported it. However, I want to hear what the noble Baroness will say in reply. I think that she faces a difficult task in this part of the Bill.
As we have been reminded, the Government insist, correctly, that merit shall be the overriding and dominant criterion for the appointment to the judiciary. That must be right. However, I believe that most people will have difficulty in seeing by what means lay members of an appointments commission can measure judicial merit. I suggest that judicial merit has to be assessed by reference to an informed knowledge and understanding of the record of a particular candidate. By that I do not mean the record in terms of political convenience to one politician or another but in terms of serving the rule of law in a manner that we expect of our judiciary; that is, impartially, without fear or favour and bringing high qualities of character and intellect to bear. For the life of me I see great difficulty, if I were a lay member, in assessing those qualities or, indeed, any of them. I can, however, see dangers of a public perception that lay members will be expected to bring political considerations to bear.
I very much hope that the noble Baroness will answer the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, on why High Court judges are included in this measure and not exempt from it, as are the Lord Chief Justice and Lords Justices of Appeal under the terms of the Bill. When I say "exempt" from it, I mean that they are excluded from what we are talking about at the moment. It seems to me that that distinction is important as the High Court judge will hear applications for judicial review regarding abuse of executive power. That is an immensely important development in our law brought about virtually exclusively by the judiciary and not by Parliament for reasons that we can well understand. All politicians expect, or at least hope, to be in government themselves and do not want to have tiresome judges looking at the way in which they have taken a decision. It is the High Court judge in Northern Ireland, as in England and Wales, to whom application is made for judicial review and who will decide those matters of great political importance, as they sometimes are. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will explain why the High Court judge is to be subject to this method of appointment whereas the even more senior judges are not.
Finally, the whole question of lay participation in an appointments commission is a very difficult one indeed if one is seeking to justify these reforms by reference to the need to improve public confidence in the judiciary. If we had the misfortune to have to undergo surgery, I do not think that we would be

689
particularly confident in our surgeon in the knowledge that he had been chosen by a majority of lay people rather than by a majority of his fellow professionals. One can make the same point, perhaps even more vividly, when talking about the selection of airline pilots or the engineers who ensure that the maintenance is properly carried out. Therefore, there is considerable difficulty regarding the concept of the participation of lay people. I believe that that difficulty is confounded and made much worse by the proposal regarding equal numbers. For that reason I support the amendment moved by my noble friend.
Noon
Lord Filkin: As the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, referred to his Amendment No.25, with the leave of the Committee I shall speak to both at once, if the opposition Benches are comfortable with that.
Lord Glentoran: Before the noble Lord does so, perhaps I may also speak to Amendment No.25. I wish to make two brief points on Amendment No.25. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, that this would be, and could be, a useful amendment if the Minister cannot see his way to giving way on Amendment No.23. It is a rather small safeguard but it is something in the form of a safeguard which would perhaps help public confidence in the way that my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew pointed out. The clause as it stands gives neither public confidence nor clarification in any shape or form and will certainly not support the merit principle. At this stage of the Bill I seek some form of amendment from the Government to put those problems right.
Lord Filkin: I turn first to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. He spoke of the importance of depoliticising judicial appointments. The Government could not agree more. As the noble Lord will be well aware, that has been at the heart of the proposals on which we have consulted with regard to England and Wales. I do not wish to stray into that further.
The establishment of a Judicial Appointments Commission for Northern Ireland is part of such a process. At present judicial appointments in Northern Ireland are made by a politician—the Lord Chancellor. He does a particularly good job regarding that process. Nevertheless, those appointments are made by a politician through a process that, while I do not think for a second anyone necessarily says is corrupt or flawed, is opaque. It is not transparent and it is not apparent how that process is carried out. That goes to the heart of why—touching on one of the questions that have been raised—we think that it is right to bring the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill to the House at this time. We see that there is a need, justification and merit in establishing a Judicial Appointments Commission for Northern Ireland in advance of whenever devolution may be restored as it has fundamentally important benefits to deliver. I say no more now but shall touch on that later, if need be.
690
I turn to the question that the noble Lord raised regarding the argument that the judiciary should be in a majority on such a body. As I am sure the Committee will recall, the arithmetic of the commission, as established by the 2002 Act, provides for six judicial members, one of whom is a lay magistrate, and two professional lawyers—a barrister and a solicitor. So, effectively, out of a total membership of 13, including the chairman, it has eight judicial professional members and five lay ones. That does not exactly meet the preference that the noble Lord expressed—he would have preferred a majority of the judiciary—nevertheless eight out of the 13 members of the commission will be deeply seasoned in the law, legal processes and legal systems. Therefore, there will be no lack of depth of understanding of the importance of the judicial process and the skills that might be required to fulfil office as a judge in Northern Ireland.
The further argument was made by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, and others that the lay members have no function at all, or they should have a function only if they are expert in some way in legal processes. I believe that that short changes the role of the commission. If one casts one's mind back to the functions of the commission, one sees that they certainly include making recommendations or decisions on judicial appointments. However, they go wider than that. Over a period of time—perhaps we shall discuss this later—the members of the commission consider how they can try to widen the diversity within the judiciary subject—as it always must be—to the fundamental prior test of merit. They also try to ensure that in all parts of our society, certainly not least in Northern Ireland, the public have confidence in the judiciary. That is crucial. I shall not for a second argue that the members of the judiciary in Northern Ireland are seen as anything other than talented, incorruptible and brave in terms of how they have coped during the past 20 or 30 years. However, they are not necessarily always regarded as being in touch with, or understanding, ordinary society, as is the case in England and Wales. That is one of the reasons for appointing lay members to the Judicial Appointments Commission.
Anyone who has sat on a board or a committee knows that it is very difficult to compartmentalise individual members of a board vis-á-vis certain functions. In certain decisions it is undoubtedly the case that certain people on a board have a particular weight because of the depth of their knowledge, their experience and their ability to marshal arguments and evidence. On some decisions one would expect, without in any way implying that one should fetter it through legislation, the judicial members, the lawyers, to be very powerful indeed in their expression of the importance of certain criteria and whether certain candidates meet those criteria.
In other areas the lay members could be expected to have a powerful contribution to make. So 1 do not think that there is a need to specify or limit that in legislation. If anything, the arithmetical balance, as expressed in the 2002 Act leans powerfully towards—how shall I put it?—professional lawyers or the

691
judiciary. I make no issue of that, whatever. But it is necessary to move forward now on making that change, because there are important issues to address in terms of confidence, diversity and not necessarily waiting until devolution has been restored. In other words, the Government have a position on the merit of judicial appointment commissions across the United Kingdom, notwithstanding where we are on devolution.
The short answer to why we allow the Judicial Appointments Commission to appoint high court judges is that we were minded, as we indicated in the 2002 Act, to accept recommendation 81 of the review body. We felt that had merit. I will shortly be reminded if it is the case that I have probably not necessarily given satisfaction in my general comments, but have sought to address most of the specific issues that can be answered now. For those reasons it is right to establish the Judicial Appointments Commission now. Its balance is as right as it can be and there is no need to limit the specific roles of membership; given my points about balance and about how commissions, committees or boards work in practice, whereby certain members have particular influence on certain issues, as is right and proper. For those reasons I hope that I have at least given pause for thought to the committee on the two amendments.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Returning almost to the beginning of the Minister's remarks, I wish that I was a shorthand writer, because I would not be groping for the noun he used when he said that the judiciary—and he paid it a graceful and well-deserved compliment—was not always seen as being in touch with ordinary, I think he said, "people", although it might have been "life'", "society" or "standards". I cannot remember. But the sense was that a significant proportion of people in Northern Ireland did not find the judiciary in touch. Where is the evidence for that? Northern Ireland is a community of around 1.6 million, extending over six counties; and the judges have been educated almost entirely in maintained schools there, not private schools. They live cheek-jowl with the people whose cases come before them. I would be surprised if there were any significant evidence to support that statement. Could the Minister help?
12.15 p.m.
Lord Filkin: I am pleased that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, recognised that I have great respect and some, if limited, direct experience of, the judiciary in Northern Ireland in my current role as the Courts Minister. We are talking about perception, not necessarily always about reality. My evidence came from the Criminal Justice Review of March 2000, when in a survey of Northern Ireland's population.66 per cent thought that the judges were out of touch with ordinary people's thought. There is no great shock there; one would obtain similar figures if the same question were asked in England and Wales. It does not automatically mean that it is true. I am just making the point that there is an issue of confidence.
692
When reasons for such views were explored, people thought that judges came from a particular social class—they may have been wrong—and were therefore seen as isolated from the community and unable to understand ordinary lives. We shall return to those issues in other Bills.
There may not always be proof and substance in all those allegations. The argument over why it matters is that judges have to make difficult decisions at times; and the media and the popular press are perhaps over eager to criticise them, saying that they made wrong judgments in difficult cases. Therefore, it is a worry for society if too large a gulf opens between the public's perception of judges, who might be caricatured as being out of touch with reality, and the judgments. If those are put together there is a slight risk that the confidence of the public, particularly in the criminal justice system, is weakened. I shall not make too much of that. All I would say is that the Judicial Appointments Commission is one contribution towards ensuring that the process of selecting judges is, and over a period of time the composition of the judiciary is seen to become, more reflective of society—particularly regarding gender, where the differences are greatest, both in England and Wales and Northern Ireland.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I am quite astonished at the suggestion from the Minister that somehow in the Bill we are talking about make-believe and not about reality. I think he used the term "talking about perceptions". In other words, we are talking about make-believe rather than reality. I have lived for well in excess of 60 years in Northern Ireland. Whatever may be the perception of the judiciary in other parts of the United Kingdom, in Northern Ireland we are a small parochial community. The judges come from no particular stratum of society. In fact, society in Northern Ireland is not stratified in the way that it is, perhaps, in England. So there is not a particular question of detachment from the judiciary. It is a pity that we are looking at what can only be interpreted by people like myself as a levelling down. Instead of enhancing the confidence of the community in the way in which the judiciary is appointed, we are seeking to call into question something that should not be and are therefore undermining the confidence of our community.
The reality over 30 difficult years of dealing on a daily basis—on an hourly basis—with terrorism is that throughout that period the judiciary was seen to be evenhanded to the point of what some might have claimed to be liberalism, under the circumstances. I am not at all convinced by the comments that I have heard. I am certainly not convinced by the argument that the Lord Chancellor is a political figure. I accept that he is someone with special status in judicial matters. We do ourselves no service by somehow decrying something that had 77 per cent acceptance from the community in Northern Ireland. That was an amazing initial finding for Northern Ireland because so often people almost want to have a reason to differ with what is seen as the establishment, the administration, or one tradition or

693
another. The figure of 77 per cent was mentioned, yet we are seeking to tweak it and to level down. That is not in the best interests of justice, nor is it in the best interests of the people I know in Northern Ireland.
We shall not have a degree of latitude from the Government on this matter and I give notice at this stage that I shall find it difficult not to oppose the Question that the clause shall stand part.
Lord Glentoran: I thank the Minister for his response. He said that 66 per cent of the population had expressed the view that judges were out of touch. I suggest to him—and he half made the point—that if a survey showed that 44 per cent of the English population felt that judges were totally in touch, he would be a happy man and so would the Lord Chancellor. That is not an unrealistic figure for a community of this kind.
The noble Lord made the argument for transparency, but I never suggested that there was none. At the outset of my brief remarks, I clearly accepted that a lay membership to the commission, if we must have one, would help transparency. However, the Government's number one objective, and ours, is the merit principle, but the Minister did not make a sound argument for that. Indeed, my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew tore to pieces his argument in relation to maintaining the merit principle. As I have said and as was said to me by a certain person who shall remain nameless, commissions will make political decisions and end up appointing the wrong person or people.
I shall not divide the Committee today. It is useful to explore these arguments. Although I doubt it, I hope that the Government will look again at Amendments Nos.23 and 25 and see how we can strengthen the merit argument in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, made it clear that, as it stands, it will not encourage or give confidence to the population in Northern Ireland. This is a political Bill—certainly the first part of it—it is not a justice Bill and it will play no part in restoring the confidence of the Unionist population.
In relation to the quality and merit of the current judiciary, it has done a wonderful job for more than 30 years. I believe that the majority of High Court judges come from the Roman Catholic persuasion. That is not to say that they are nationalists or republicans because they would not own up to being either, which is the strength of it.
To suggest that the Lord Chancellor, when appointing judges, is a politician makes a mockery of the whole state of affairs. We all know and understand that the Lord Chancellor has three clear-cut roles which have existed for a long time; legislative, Cabinet and judicial. Until today—I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is continuing in this vein he has steadfastly maintained the wearing of those three separate and clear hats. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No.24:
Page 2, line 3, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No.25 not moved.]
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 2, line 10. leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: The amendment refers to the subsection which limits the period for which a judge can serve on the Judicial Appointments Commission to a maximum of 10 years. In the 2002 Act, the period which judges may serve is not limited but that of the lay members is.
I am not happy about that for a number of reasons. Many High Court judges in Northern Ireland sit on the Bench for sometimes 20 years and more. That is true of high fliers whose ability to serve on the JAC is of the greatest importance. Secondly, there are only eight High Court judges in Northern Ireland, plus three Lord Justices and the Lord Chief Justice. That makes a total of 12. Given that some of them serve for more than 20 years, if we begin to restrict the period for which the senior judges may serve on the JAC, we will, from a practical point of view, be at risk of running into trouble.
I do not see why it is necessary to limit the period to 10 years. I have heard of no such argument and I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say. I can see the argument for lay members because there is a large pool of people to be called upon, a large part of the Province, different groupings and so forth. I can see that turning that membership around over time has considerable benefit. However, if there are only eight High Court judges, I can see no benefit in the change.
I am concerned by another matter. As I read the Bill, the Lord Chief Justice, who is to chair the Joint Advisory Commission, appears to be caught by the provision. If so, he may have already served I0 years, or a substantial part of it, even before his appointment to that post. Are we going to have the Lord Chief Justice barred from chairing the commission because he has already served his 10 years? There appear to be a number of issues of practical and administrative concern, if nothing else. I beg to move.
Lord Filkin: I shall not speak at excessive length. There are three points. The first is the argument of equivalence. That did not seem to us to be a good reason for not having a commonality between judicial and lay members in terms of eligibility to serve on the commission.
The second argument—I am groping for the best adjective to use—is about variety or turnaround. A judge being able to serve a five-year term and then another five-year term, either abutting each other or with a gap between them, gives him the opportunity to make a powerful contribution to the Judicial Appointments Commission. Experience shows that there is benefit in such bodies having some refreshment

695
and turnaround. One does not want them to become completely fossilised around one set of members to the exclusion of others.
The third argument is that while the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is right, as often, the pool is not limitless, but other people would be able to contribute on a JAC and therefore there is benefit in having some turnaround.
My final point—noble Lords may tease me about it, as it goes slightly against some of the other points that I have just made—is that, on promotion to another tier of the judiciary, a person can have another opportunity to enter the judicial appointments commission, at least conceptually. Whether they would want to do so, I do not know, and whether it would seem appropriate or not, I do not know. But at least that may be a slight comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran.
12.30 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: Before the noble Lord leaves that point, can he clarify the situation involving the Lord Chief Justice?
Lord Filkin: He is not subject to the time limit; he is there ex officio.
Lord Glentoran: If the Lord Chief Justice is ex officio, does he have a vote on the commission?
Lord Filkin: Yes.
Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble Lord for his answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: Taking an example from the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, at this stage I shall not continue to oppose the Question whether Clause 2 shall stand part. As I have already made clear, I am less than happy with the response from the Government Front Bench. I hope that, in not opposing the Question whether Clause 2 shall stand part, the Government will reconsider whether there can be a compromise in terms of Amendment No.23. The Government could take that amendment away and perhaps tweak it a little so that there is some change, if not a change to the full extent proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. On that basis, I shall not oppose the Question whether Clause 2 shall stand part.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Duty of Commission to secure judiciary reflective of the community]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes): If Amendment No.27 is agreed to, I cannot then call Amendments Nos.28 or 29 by reason of preemption.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass Lord Maginnis of Drumglass moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 2, leave out lines 26 to 35.
The noble Lord said: When I spoke on Clause 2, I indicated my concern about the term "reflective of the community". In Clause 3 we have a reiteration of the principle that appointments should be—must be—made solely on the basis of merit. That particular qualification or condition is then watered down by being made subject to being "reflective of the community".
Such is the situation in Northern Ireland that the judiciary is not reflective of the community in one area—that of gender. So the judicial element cannot meet the requirement of subsections (9) and 3(10). If that is the case, I shall give your Lordships an example of how ridiculous this can become. If the judicial element cannot be reflective of the community, neither can the lay element, because the commission as a whole will then be looked at to see how it can be made reflective of the community. Virtually all the judicial element is male. To match that, all the lay element will have to be female. That is not reflective of the community.
Perhaps I may give an example of how this has created a problem for me in terms of district police partnerships. I am chairman elect of a district police partnership and we found ourselves—a number of councillors of every persuasion—sitting round a table and selecting the lay members. We were in total agreement—nationalist and Unionist, Protestant and Catholic—because in my council we work as a team, irrespective of politics or religion. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, will bear me out on that matter. Having reached a decision on which we were all agreed, the police board decided that because Sinn Fein within the council was not participating in the district police partnerships and, therefore, under the d'Hondt system, Unionists had a majority among the elected members, then, among the non-elected members, seven out of eight should be Roman Catholic.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, knows my area particularly well. If you take an area such as that covered by Dungannon and South Tyrone borough council, you will find that seven Catholics and one Protestant is hardly reflective of the community, but that is what is being presented to the people out there. They know who their councillors are. They know that their councillors get on with the business. They know we do what we have to do. The same can be applied to the judiciary in this specific case: people getting on and doing what they have to do, irrespective of colour, class or creed. They will not understand if I concur with the direction by the police board—and I have not done so—and I believe that if the police board was right the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would have overruled me during the past year when I have refused to form the district police partnership in Dungannon and South Tyrone.
I recount that situation to your Lordships because it is important in terms of the judiciary that we do not find that, instead of something that is representative

697
and based on a meritocracy, we have something which is tweaked, fiddled and cheated over in order to get something that has little meaning and little relevance to the ordinary person on the street—the consumer. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: In rising to support the amendment, may I enlarge upon what the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, said about gender? If you are determined to have a judiciary that is reflective of the community, then clearly you must work towards a state of affairs in which 50 or probably 51 per cent of the judiciary are women. Accordingly, all judicial vacancies over the next few years must be filled exclusively by women in order to attain that end. I also wonder how age would be affected. Would you have to have judges ranging in age evenly from 18 to 80? I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on that matter.
Lord Fitt: I feel compelled to support some of the reservations that have just been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis. Your Lordships will be aware that over many years I have had reservations about the appointment of judges in Northern Ireland. It would be entirely dishonest to say that there was not a very high political element in the appointment of judges in Northern Ireland. I have repeated in your Lordships' House and in Committee the details of a particular case in which I was involved, although I do not want to go into that again.
However, what do I think of the commission? It was said by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, that the commission would have to be reflective of the community in Northern Ireland. That is an impossibility. In view of the changed political circumstances in Northern Ireland since the most recent Assembly elections, it would be necessary for Sinn Fein and the DUP to have persons appointed to the commission, and all kinds of objections would be raised.
I believe it is significant that the Minister said that the Government want to get this legislation through in advance of devolution being restored to the Assembly. But that would be a very dangerous attitude to take because people in Northern Ireland, and in particular Sinn Fein and the SDLP, have repeatedly put forward their ideas for reforming the police, the judiciary and the criminal justice system. Those are the three main elements which they have put forward in all their submissions.
In view of the changed political circumstances, I ask the Minister whether it is advisable to rush this Bill on to the statute book. If there is to be devolution and if, as I predict, Sinn Fein and the DUP will want to be represented, they will say that this legislation was rushed through this House while they had the support of people in Northern Ireland who elected them and that they are more reflective of the community in Northern Ireland than are Members of your Lordships' House. I believe it is hard to disagree with that argument.
I turn to the appointment of the lay members of the commission. Anyone from Northern Ireland will recognise that every person in Northern Ireland has a
698
political opinion, whether they are nationalists or Unionists. No one in Northern Ireland is picked for any position on the grounds that he has no political opinions. When the members of the commission are appointed, they will have political opinions. Indeed, that will be the reason for their appointment because they represent nationalists or Unionists. Therefore, there will be a continuation of discrimination on one side or the other.
I believe that over the past 10 or 20 years—in fact, since direct rule in 1972—dramatic changes have taken place in the appointment of judges. Prior to that, a certain section of the community—namely, the Catholics and nationalists—had no high opinion on the appointment of judges. As I said, I have illustrated a particular case time and again in your Lordships' House.
Until the recent changes, the Lord Chancellor had responsibility for appointing judges in Northern Ireland. There was one case—I do not want to go into it now in detail—in which the Government of Northern Ireland made a recommendation to the Lord Chancellor. That amounted to political interference with the Lord Chancellor taking a role in the appointment of judges. Therefore, one cannot say that the commission will be set up with the lay members having no political opinions.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, said that Northern Ireland judges were well known and that they lived cheek by jowl with the community in which they served. That is totally untrue. One should talk to any of the policemen in Northern Ireland who drive the judges around in cars and stand with them when they go to social functions. Although this may sometimes be exaggerated, it is said that judges in Northern Ireland dare not go into a supermarket on their own without the support of a policeman. They could not walk the streets in certain areas of Belfast, particularly in nationalist areas but, in some cases, Unionist areas as well. They are not living cheek by jowl with the community in which they serve on the judiciary. So it would he dishonest to say that the judges know the people with whom they deal and on whom they will pass decisions one way or another.
Therefore, the Government are not faced with an easy task. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, when he said that it is an absolute impossibility to appoint members to the commission who are totally neutral and yet reflective of the community. That is the reality of Northern Ireland. Does the Minister believe that he has held adequate discussions with the political representatives in Northern Ireland? Does he not feel that it would be injudicious to push through this legislation in advance of devolution being restored to the Northern Ireland Assembly? Once the Assembly is elected, it will want to express opinions on the criminal justice Bill. Therefore, it may be right for the Minister to hold back before discussions are held with the newly elected political parties, which have thought about such political change in Northern Ireland since the Assembly elections.
12.45 p.m.
Lord Filkin: This has been an important and interesting debate. Perhaps I may start by returning to the essential elements of Clause 3. The first limb of it—subsection (8)—contains the absolutely crucial wording:
"The selection of a person to be appointed, or recommended for appointment, to a listed judicial office… must be made solely on the basis of merit".
In response to an earlier discussion that we had, I am genuinely racking my brains to think how on earth one could make that clearer or stronger. However, it seems to me that that point must be met. It cannot be compromised; it cannot be balanced; it must be met. Merit is and must always be the test.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: With respect, will the Minister look at the next two words? However clear that is, it is "subject to". Those words cannot be ignored, and I should be disappointed if the Minister were to ignore them as though that were not the case.
Lord Filkin: I shall defer to the noble Lord if I am wrong, but I understand "subject to" to mean that what follows must take a subsidiary position to what has just been stated.
The next limb of Clause 3 states that,
"the Commission must engage in a programme of action designed to secure, so far as it is reasonably practicable to do so. that appointments to listed judicial offices are such that those holding such offices are reflective of the community".
The final part of the clause states that,
"the Commission must, so far as it is reasonably practicable to do so, secure that a range of persons reflective of the community…is available for consideration by the Commission".
It seems to me that the draftsmanship and the policy behind that is right because it is saying that the appointment of our judiciary on merit must never be compromised. However, it is also saying that, while that is paramount, if one can still seek to address some of the issues that are apparent in terms of the diversity of the judiciary, it is desirable as a position of policy to try to do so.
I turn to why I and the Government believe that that matters. We touched on this issue in a debate in September on a Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. It was suggested then that there were three essential arguments why diversity matters. If one does not take the position that women are more stupid than men—which I do not believe anyone in this House is likely to—one has to ask the question why it is there are so few women in the judiciary. In Northern Ireland 87 per cent of the judiciary are men. Therefore if it is a fact—and it is not dissimilar in England and Wales—one is led to question what it is about the system that leads to that result. That is not to say that people making these appointments are sexist or biased. I have no view or knowledge to that effect. However, something leads to a judiciary with that kind of composition.
Why does it matter? It matters on three grounds. First, let us go back to the point of confidence. If one believes women have as much brain-power and
700
character as men, we are likely to be missing talent as a consequence of the process that leads to these results. So the first argument is one of talent.
The second one is fairness. If there are such talented women and the system is not consciously designed to disadvantage them, it must mean that there is something about the process that leads to talented women not being able to get into positions when they would like to do so. The third one is the point of confidence. I shall not repeat what I said on that.
Those are the arguments about why diversity matters, but diversity has to be seen within the context of not compromising merit. One may say that it is impossible to do it; that diversity cannot be addressed without compromising merit. That has not been my experience and I do not believe it has been the experience in British public policy over the past 20 years when a range of private and public sector organisations have tried to uphold the principle of appointing the best person for a role or a job and also to question why the system seemed to lead to either bias in terms of gender or ethnicity.
While nobody claims perfection, there has been an enormous amount of learnt experience about how one sometimes has to look at the nature of processes and adjust them to ensure that people have an opportunity to compete on a fair basis and then be judged on merit. In essence, that is what the Judicial Appointments Commission is being asked to do—in part, to make decisions or recommendations; in part to get information about what is happening in the system, but in part also to explore impediments that lead to these results. It is not being asked to go around pointing fingers and saying that Ministers or the senior judiciary are biased; it will try to see if there is something in the nature of the system that leads to these results. If that is the case, then we need to stimulate a debate in society about what can be done to change it. That would be a debate as much within the Bar Council or the Law Society, as it would be within the processes that lead to immediate decisions. So that element of the work is much more longer term, but it will bring in a process over time that is more likely to lead to the opportunity for talented people to come forward and then, if they meet the merit test, to be appointed. I hope that answers the important question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. We are not saying "the next X per cent", it can only be on merit and it is governed by "so far as is practicable".
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, in his Second Reading speech made some interesting historical references to what happened in the past. He was arguing that it would not be good to do this now and we should leave it until devolution took place—I apologise to him if I do his arguments an injustice. We cannot wait because these issues of diversity, of transparency, matter and there is every reason for starting that process now, rather than finding reasons for putting it off. I have no idea when devolution will happen. I hope it will happen sooner rather than later if the tests that need to be in place for it to happen can be met. It might be sooner or it might be later. Either way, if the Judicial Appointments Commission, through doing its work, starts to lay the ground for deepening confidence,

701
increasing transparency and leading over time to more diversity, I would have thought that the Assembly would welcome that.
I apologise to the Committee if I have talked at too great length, but I have outlined the argumentation as to why we think that there is no risk in this. The legislation is properly balanced and is tightly conditional, subject to the supremacy of merit and so it should be.
Lord Monson: The Minister has, as always, put his case extremely well. However, let me put another question to him. If merit is the only criterion which counts, why should there be a compulsory retirement age for judges? If a judge is as competent, alert and on the ball in their seventies as they were 20 years earlier, why should they be forced to retire?
Lord Filkin: Well, this is rash but not knowing the answer, I shall venture one or two reasons. Recognising, as I increasingly do, the benefits that age brings to wisdom, the judges already have a pretty high retirement age. Secondly, we are all at risk, as time goes by, of succumbing to the diseases of age. Therefore the risk of losing one's acuity does increase as one ages, particularly when one gets beyond 75. Thirdly, there is the argument that at times organisations do need space to allow people with talent to come through. So off the cuff, those would be my reflections.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I should have responded to the implied invitation of noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, that I should confirm what he had to say about the way in which the council he has sat on for a very long time operates regardless of political or community differences. I very willingly do so. I also wish to ask the Minister whether he could explain the significance of the difference between "being reflective of" and "being representative of"? There has been a change to "reflective" from "representative". I am not sure what the intended significance of that may be.
Lastly, I should like to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt who invited me to recant from my assertion that the judges knew their people because they had been at school with them and lived cheek by jowl. I do not think I have to recant from that solely because there are areas in which judges cannot proceed without protection officers. Perhaps that may be said to be throughout Northern Ireland. I do not believe that having lived in that community, man and boy, and having served as a solicitor or at the Bar before they became judges, they somehow become cocooned and a kind of amnesia falls so that they are unable to determine how people think and how they behave, simply by virtue of appointment to the Bench. I do not believe that I am called upon to recant from that. Of course they have difficulties but those are imposed upon them by what is still called the Emergency after 30 years.
Lastly, I hope the Minister will not endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, says about widespread political influence in the appointment of judges under the present system. I have only had experience of two Lord
702
Chancellors and am absolutely satisfied that the judges appointed at that time in Northern Ireland were appointed by reference to merit. It so happened—and it was a felicitous happening—that the High Court judges did and I believe still do contain a majority of those who come from the Catholic side of the community. That was regarded as fortuitous and it certainly was not the product of intention.
1 p.m.
Lord Filkin: On the use of "reflective" rather than "representative", there are probably two reasons. First, if I recollect, we received some good arguments and advice on the matter and often, if not always, our ears are open to such arguments. The second argument, which is not just semantics, is that the word "representative" bears a slight risk that people will think that one is there to represent the community or that one is a delegate. That is exactly the reverse of what we would expect to be the case. The word "reflective", a softer term, avoids any risk in that respect, which is why we have been keen to use it.
On the second point raised by the noble and learned Lord on political influence, I can speak with direct, firsthand experience of my relatively limited time in the Department for Constitutional Affairs. I am absolutely clear from that experience that both officials and the Lord Chancellor when operating in the mode of judicial appointment could not be more punctilious about the process, and issues of political affiliation or community affiliation would not be part of their consideration. They would make judgments on merit, as I am sure was the case when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, had strong interest in such issues.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: In over 20 years in the Palace of Westminster I have often felt that what one has to say as someone who comes from a small community or a small geographical area of the United Kingdom is not given the same degree of importance as that said by someone who comes from a larger geographical area. In this respect, I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, has not taken up a single, solitary point that I made when I introduced the amendment. I know that that was not deliberate.
I listened to his general, clever, reasonable response and it was quite convincing. But sadly I do not live in a totally reasonably environment; I live in an environment where there is still an underlying suspicion, where there are differences between different religious traditions and differences between political parties. I was pleased that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, endorsed what I said about my district council area. The reason I told that story was because I wanted it understood that what we had achieved as elected representatives was undermined by well intentioned, but quite foolish, legislation pertaining to the independent element of district police partnerships. We are being driven back towards an entrenchment of religious or political considerations. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has very forcefully indicated that that is the case.
The situation is changing in Northern Ireland and I tend to agree more with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, about judges' ability to live cheek by

703
jowl. Yes, of course, they have been under threat from terrorists. The fact that they have police guards—the noble and learned Lord said that they go to the supermarkets, to rugby clubs, to soccer clubs and wherever else with their police guards—indicates that they come from within our society and that they move back and forward within all aspects of that society. Moreover—this is the more up-to-date position—the chief constable is now in the process of trying to remove such guards from judges because he believes that our society is becoming more tolerant.
There are important issues that I believe need to be taken into consideration. I shall conclude with the point that I made earlier. In the district police partnership in Dungannon the independent element is being forced to be proxy for the absent Sinn Fein councillors. That is the reality. What does the system do to find proxies for absent Sinn Fein councillors? It says that if you are a Catholic you will do. None of my Catholic friends is a Sinn Fein supporter. A huge majority within the Catholic tradition disapproves of everything that Sinn Fein and the IRA stood for. Hence, that particular situation is discouraging and it is dismantling what we have attempted to achieve.
I would like the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, to contemplate that and to contemplate whether, by putting in this unnecessary qualification "Subject to", he will improve by one jot, one iota, the situation that we should have, in which judges are appointed and the commission's attention is very firmly drawn to the fact that they should be appointed solely on the basis of merit. With no qualifications and no political compromise, let us see whether Northern Ireland can be allowed to work without continuously being dragged back to religion and politics on a day-to-day basis.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Does the noble Lord seek to withdraw the amendment or to press it?
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment at this stage. I take my lead from what other noble Lords have done so far.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 2, line 26, after "a" insert "continuing"
The noble Lord said: Amendment No.28 is grouped with Amendment No.29. They both concern, as did the previous amendment, Clause 3 which is entitled:
"Duty of Commission to secure judiciary reflective of the community".
The amendments are intended to probe further the definition of "reflective" and of the expression "continuing programme". I apologise if anything that I say is repetitious of what has been said in the previous debate.
I thank the Minister for the opportunity of talking to his civil servants before the Committee stage of the Bill. One topic that we discussed was the definition of "reflective". I am pleased to see that all four of the
704
noble Lord's civil servants in the Box are ladies. It may be said that the department has overachieved in terms of the definition.
On that occasion we discussed the department's view of the definition. Helpfully, my attention was drawn to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, Schedule 2, paragraph 5, sub-paragraph (3). It concerns the annual report that the commission must make following its establishment. Sub-paragraph (3) states:
"The information to be included about any persons in an annual report must include information about their gender, age, ethnic origins and community background and the part of Northern Ireland (if any) with which they regard themselves as being most closely associated".
As the discussion continued with the Minister's advisers, it was clear to me that their view about the principal purpose of the word "reflective" was to put gender, age and ethnic origins as the three primary factors in determining the issues which should be considered by the Judicial Appointments Commission. I shall be most grateful if the Minister, in responding to my observations, will either confirm or develop that point in the context of paragraph 5(3).
I turn to Clause 3 of the Bill. The Minister has already made it clear that the expression,
"solely on the basis of merit",
contained in Clause 3 means just what it says. Amendments Nos.28 and 29 are intended to re-emphasise that by making certain changes to subsections (9) and (10). It would be helpful to me, if not to other Members of the Committee, if I could quote those two subsections before making my observations. Subsection (9) states that, subject to the obligation to make appointments solely on the basis of merit,
"the Commission must engage in a programme of action designed to secure, so far as it is reasonably practicable to do so, that appointments to listed judicial offices are such that those holding such offices are reflective of the community in Northern Ireland".
Subsection (10) states,
"As part of that programme of action the Commission must, so far as it is reasonably practicable to do so, secure that a range of persons reflective of the community in Northern Ireland is available for consideration by the Commission whenever it is required to select a person to be appointed, or recommended for appointment, to a listed judicial office".
Clearly in the early stages of the commission's life it will be less easy to satisfy the,
"as far as reasonably practicable",
criteria in subsection (10) than after a successful continuing programme of action. So the logic of my amendment to subsection (10) really lies in the requirements of subsection (11).
Amendment No.29 seeks to emphasise that the programme undertaken by the commission should be open-ended, a continuing programme; it should not have a life of only two, three, four or even five years. If I am right in assuming that gender, age and ethnic origin are the key ingredients of "reflective", then clearly we shall need an open-ended programme.
I can deal with Amendment No.29 briefly. It concerns the importance of laying these matters before your Lordships and another House every year for an appropriate debate. I beg to move.
Lord Filkin: The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is absolutely correct that gender, ethnicity and age are extremely important. They do not necessarily all have exactly the same importance. If one is looking at the variance between what we think we have at present—we do not really know—and what the society is, the differential is greater on some than others. The gender issue is the clearest example. At one level, as far as we understand and it is perhaps easiest to spot, there are no ethnic minority members of the judiciary in Northern Ireland. On the other hand the proportion of the population from ethnic minority backgrounds in Northern Ireland is also very low. Hence my two points about the gap.
For reasons of experience there will always be a limit as to how far one can go with age. Nevertheless, it seems to us that that is an important criterion, as it seemed to this Chamber when it passed the 2002 Act. It is important to keep track of it, partly because it touches on a later point of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland; that if one is not bringing in appropriate people at the beginning of the process, one will not have appropriate people to choose from later on.
In terms of a continuing programme, while I do not accept the noble Lord's amendment, I certainly agree with his argument. He is fundamentally right that this sort of process of change does not happen overnight. My experience is that it is a 10, 15 or even 20-year programme of change. That is another reason for starting now rather than putting it off. It is not something that one can fix within two or three years. Therefore I totally agree with the noble Lord that the process should be continuing.
I am being slightly churlish about not accepting the amendment but give the commitment that the process must be continuing. The statutory duty exists and it will continue until such time, if ever, Parliament rescinds it. So the nature of the legislation ensures that it is continuing. I was a little churlish about not accepting the amendment because we have not really started yet and there is not much of a programme at present to continue. We perhaps therefore need a different term from "continuing".
1.15 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: I am grateful for the Minister's explanation, which is extremely helpful. The crucial issue that I wanted to emphasise is that we cannot have the third paragraph without the second paragraph. If we want to produce a range of candidates for a specific job, which is what appears from the text of the Bill, we have to have a programme of the sort suggested and it has to be long-term, otherwise we will never reach subparagraph (3). That is the crucial point that I wanted to emphasise.
Lord Filkin: I totally agree. It is through those processes that one avoids there being a conflict with "merit". But that takes time; it is a long process.
706
I talked about three specific criteria. I should not forget community background. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, has spoken to us. As far as one can judge—we do not have accurate statistics on this—the judiciary is not grossly disproportionate in its community backgrounds. Nevertheless, it is right and proper, for obvious reasons in Northern Ireland, to keep that under review and to try to ensure that there is nothing in the process that leads us in the wrong direction rather than in a better direction.
What is not relevant and what will not he monitored will be political views and political affiliations in any respect whatever. I am in the unhappy position of totally agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and yet resisting his amendment.
Lord Kingsland: Desolated as I am by the final message of the Minister, I shall not press my amendment. I shall reflect on what to do on Report, but beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.29 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving this Motion I suggest that the Committee Stage begin again at the agreed time of 2.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question. Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Sudan
1.19 p.m.
Baroness Coxrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy on recent developments in Sudan
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords contributing to this debate, at a time that is so critical for the people of Sudan.
Since the National Islamic Front (NIF) Islamist regime took power by military coup in 1989 and declared military jihad against all who oppose it, the toll of human suffering, with 2 million dead and 5 million displaced, exceeds the combined toll of Rwanda, Somalia and former Yugoslavia. There is now a ray of hope with the peace talks, which need strong encouragement and urgent measures to resolve outstanding problems.
I shall focus primarily on the continuing violence and violations of human rights in Darfur and the unresolved status of the "marginalised areas". I wish first to refer to another concern: the imposition of Sharia law in the north and Khartoum in particular. If Khartoum remains the capital of Sudan, it must reflect the beliefs, traditions and culture of all Sudanese people. Many are deeply opposed to Sharia, which violates principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) such as equality before the law and freedom to choose and to change religion. Moreover, the NIF is implementing

707
harsh Sharia punishments, such as sentencing Intisar Bakri Abdulgader, a 16 year-old Christian girl, to flogging with 100 lashes for adultery, while the man who forced her into this situation remains entirely free from any penalty. This sentence would violate the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
I turn to the continuing conflict in Darfur, where the situation is so grave that senior UN officials have warned of an impending human catastrophe: Jan Egeland, UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs declared that the humanitarian crisis in Darfur is probably the,
"worst in the world today".
All the evidence demonstrates that the destruction of the primarily African Muslim peoples, through deliberate attacks on civilians by Khartoum-backed Arab militias and deliberate denial of urgently needed humanitarian relief amounts to "ethnic cleansing". That phrase was used explicitly by the UN Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator for Sudan, Mukesh Kapila, in a BBC radio interview on 18 December.
Although he was making the point that the many reports of ethnic cleansing cannot presently be confirmed because of Khartoum's denial of access to humanitarian relief and international observers, other UN officials and Sudan analysts have been explicitly speaking of the "systematic" denial of humanitarian relief, as well as the "systematic" nature of militia attacks on non-combatant civilians with the "organised" destruction of the Fur, Masseleit, and the Zaghawa tribal groups.
Also, a Channel 4 news report on 6 January alleged "ethnic cleansing", showing the first images taken inside Darfur, of ghost village after burnt ghost village, destroyed hospitals and mosques and blackened skeletons of burnt civilians. Old men, women and children, without food or possessions, stood stranded in the desert and testified to horrific and systematic attacks across the region. Pictures of Sudanese Government Antonov bombers flying overhead proved that those perpetrating the attacks are not merely northern tribes with a vendetta but the NIF Government.
The scale of that catastrophe is enormous: MSF estimates that there are about 750, 000 displaced people in Darfur; and that in December 30, 000 had fled into Chad, with another 3, 000 fleeing last week. The NIF claims that,
"the [Sudanese] Government is firm on fully shouldering its responsibilities of protecting the lives and the property of citizens, and relief workers in Darfur",
describes its substantial relief programmes. But all the evidence from NGOs, refugee testimonies and these first media reports belies its claim. Access by international NGOs is severely limited and their activities are very restricted. And there were reports of yet more aerial bombardment of civilians by the NIF
708
as recently as Monday of this week. Consideration should be given perhaps to indicting the NIF for crimes against humanity.
The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum's Committee on Conscience concluded that Darfur has given new urgency to the committee's long-standing "genocide warning" for Sudan, which was previously focused on southern Sudan and the Nuba Mountains. The committee indicated that its,
"warning was based on the following actions of the [military government] of Sudan: a divide-to-destroy strategy of pitting ethnic groups against each other, with enormous loss of civilian life; the use of mass starvation as a weapon of destruction: toleration of the enslavement of women and children by government-allied militias; the incessant bombing of hospitals, clinics, schools and other civilian and humanitarian targets; disruption and destabilization of the communities of those who flee the war zones to other parts of Sudan; and widespread persecution on account of race, ethnicity and religion".
It concluded that,
"taken individually, each of these actions is a disaster for the victims. Taken together, they threaten the physical destruction of entire groups".
The International Crisis Group's most recent report declares that Khartoum-backed Arab militias in Darfur are attacking,
"unprotected villages with no apparent link to the rebels other than their ethnic profile";
and Amnesty International has warned that,
"the situation in Darfur is at risk of rapidly degenerating into a full-scale civil war where ethnicity is manipulated".
The conclusion is that there is compelling evidence that the Khartoum Government is "largely responsible" for the human rights and humanitarian crisis in Darfur. It is intolerable that the international community continues to allow what all evidence suggests is genocide. Therefore, the EU's recent call for a cease-fire, for the protection of civilians and for unimpeded humanitarian access is welcome.
However, urgent international action is also essential. Khartoum's claim of "national sovereignty" must not be allowed to conceal the desperate plight of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians or hinder access to them. One can only surmise that the failure of the international community to ensure humanitarian intervention derives from an unwillingness to disturb diplomatic initiatives involved with the peace talks. But that is a dangerous misunderstanding because, unless the international community shows its concern for the people of Darfur, and the peoples of the designated marginalised regions of Nuba Mountains, Abyei Province and Blue Nile, as well as other marginalised peoples, such as the Beia people of eastern Sudan, peace will be very partial and ultimately unsustainable.
All these people have suffered at the hands of the regime in Khartoum—brutality, discrimination and a lack of representation and of a share of the national wealth. At present, they may reasonably conclude that the international vision of peace is focused only on Khartoum and the south. Unless all the people of Sudan have cause to believe that their interests—indeed their physical and cultural survival—are enshrined in any peace agreements, those agreements may not produce a lasting peace. The incentive to resort to armed

709
insurrection could prove irresistible. And, if Khartoum sees that the international community is willing to ignore the massive humanitarian crisis in Darfur and to condone its denial of access to humanitarian aid, it may conclude that it can remain obdurate and achieve outcomes on its terms.
The United States, the other countries in the troika—Norway and the UK—as well as Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) countries, must look comprehensively at Sudan's problems if the goal is to secure a just and lasting peace.
Perhaps I may therefore conclude by asking the Minister whether Her Majesty's Government will urge: the NIF regime to open all parts of Sudan, especially the conflict-wracked regions of Darfur, to international humanitarian and human rights organisations; urge all involved in the peace talks to ensure that the wishes of all those living in the marginalised areas are taken fully into account in any decisions concerning their future status; ensure that any funds for reconstruction are conditional on full and transparent implementation of all aspects of the agreement; use their influence to ensure the protection of fundamental human rights, according to the UDHR and other international conventions, for all citizens of Sudan; and, finally, with regard to Darfur, work alongside other EU member states to facilitate the passing of a United Nations Security Council resolution calling for a comprehensive ceasefire, the convening of peace talks that include the presence of high-level international observers, an end to attacks on civilians, immediate and unimpeded humanitarian access, and the positioning of international monitors.
The people of Sudan believe that Britain is uniquely placed to help. They do not forget our historic relationship, which bequeathed many benefits but also a legacy of bitter conflicts, for which we carry an historic responsibility.
I look forward to hearing from the Minister how Her Majesty's Government will fulfil that responsibility at this critical juncture, helping Africa's largest nation to move forward from carnage and catastrophe to peace, justice and prosperity. The opportunity for this sea change has not been so propitious for decades; it is an opportunity that must not be lost.
1.30 p.m.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, it is indeed a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and to thank her for the opportunity to discuss recent events in Sudan. I pay tribute to her for her untiring efforts on behalf of the people of Sudan and, as the House well knows, in many other parts of the world.
There are many issues that are matters of concern to all who want to see positive moves by the Sudanese authorities that could lead towards a less repressive set of policies being implemented by the Government of that country. This debate, short as it is, will, I am sure, note that there have been some encouraging breakthroughs in the peace talks that have taken place in Naivasha. At the same time, events in the country itself indicate that the Government of Sudan continue
710
with their policies of repression and the abuse of human rights. In fact, comment has been made that the peace talks are being used by the Sudanese Government as a means of avoiding the necessity of fighting a war on more than one front.
Human rights are still being abused; people living in northern Sudan continue to have their basic human rights violated. The right to a free press is still a long way from the people of Sudan. It had been the hope of' many that press freedom would be a reality, following a decree by President al-Bashir last August. He had decreed that state censorship of newspapers should be lifted. That hope was soon dashed. Censorship, together with regular suspension of the right of some newspapers to publish, continues. Within days of the president's decree, the daily Al Alwan was suspended on 2 September. Originally banned until 24 September, a further ban was imposed two days later. It was eventually lifted on 16 October.
Similar censorship and banning of other newspapers has taken place. The Khartoum Monitor, an English-language daily, was suspended on 13 September, in direct defiance of an Appeal Court ruling that had quashed an earlier cancellation of that paper's licence. It was allowed to reappear later in October.
Five and a half weeks later, the paper was suspended again, the seventh time in two years. The allegations against the Khartoum Monitor were that it promoted slavery, worked against the peace process and worked against the Government. Other papers, including Al Azimah, have had suspensions and bans imposed on them by the Government.
Not only newspapers are affected by interference; the allegations that are so often made against the press have also been made against the independent television channel Al-Jazeera. It has been alleged that in December, representatives of the Sudanese national security forces visited its offices and informed staff of the Government's displeasure at some of its programmes. Later in the month, on 17 December, security operatives raided the agency's Khartoum offices and arrested Salih Adam Belo, a journalist, and his cameraman, Hamid Tirab. The security people also confiscated their equipment. Mr Belo was accused of transmitting programmes that were,
"stuffed with false information and poor, biased analyses, with pictures and scenes selected to serve its ends".
The National Security Authority, which arrested Mr Belo, has the power to detain people without charge or trial for up to nine months. The evidence cited against Mr Belo included accusations that he had transmitted programmes reporting on tuberculosis, landmine victims and events in the western Darfur region. Mr Belo was released from Kober prison on 24 December. He continues to undergo interrogation.
On 1 January, the security authorities are reported to have said to the Government in Khartoum that they wanted the licence that allows Al-Jazeera to have an office in the country revoked. Mr Belo is one of many courageous journalists who tried to collect and publish the facts about what is happening in their country.

711
There have been protests both locally and internationally. The German news agency, DPA, reported that Sudanese journalists organised a sit-in at the offices of Al Ayam and the Khartoum Monitor. They were protesting about the banning of newspapers. More than 30 journalists representing 17 newspapers have signed a statement that by taking the action they did, they hope to,
"guarantee rights of expression and to enhance freedoms".
They called for the lifting of the bans and for fair trials for the two papers.
There is insufficient time to mention other facts about this repression and the denial of people's rights to read or see what is happening in their country. I would, however, like to refer to one other area of concern—the treatment of human rights defenders and trade unionists. The harassment of trade unionists and human rights defenders has also continued. On 21 December last year, the NSA arrested nine members of the General Trade Union Council at a peaceful meeting in a house at Shambat, Khartoum north. The men were interrogated about the activities of their organisation. They were released seven and a half hours later and ordered to report to the agency's offices the following morning at 11 o'clock. The following day, the men were not questioned but held until 6 p.m., and again ordered to report back the following day.
On 28 December, the NSA arrested Dr Madawi Ibrahim Adam, a human rights activist and consultant engineer at Lambda Engineering Company. He is also chairperson of the Sudan Social Development Organisation, a registered non-governmental organisation. Dr Adam was arrested at his home in Omdurman; security force operatives are said to have searched the house, seized documents and damaged the building. One of the documents seized was a tender for a project to develop water stations in southern Sudan.
Within Sudan, there are others, and other organisations, who want to express their concern about the treatment meted out to representatives of NGOs. Students and the Sudan Organisation Against Torture continue to highlight many of the abuses that are taking place.
I conclude by asking my noble friend the Minister to press our Government to let the Sudanese authorities know of the concern that many outside of Sudan have for the people of that country, who are looking forward to the day when free speech and the defence of basic human rights become a reality in Sudan.
1.36 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, the prospect of a genuine peace agreement in Sudan is obviously tremendous news. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for being late for her speech. She has pursued this issue for longer than I can remember, and she must feel some satisfaction. Congratulations are due to all the negotiators, but it is also time to recognise the commitment of this Government and the valuable work put in by our FCO envoys and their staff who helped put the talks back on track last
712
summer—not, for once, overshadowed by the United States, whose pressure behind the scenes has also contributed. But it is not over yet.
The wealth-sharing agreement signed last week was another milestone, given the bitterness of the oil war in Upper Nile and the resulting internal divisions in the south. Oil revenues now amount to more than two-thirds of Sudan's export earnings, and a 50:50 split, supervised by a national commission of experts, will give the south a huge psychological advantage as well as an economic leap forward. However, we are not there yet. This is only the first stage and there are still substantive issues to resolve, not least control over oil in Abyei in Kordofan and the other disputed regions. Agreements in lakeside hotels in Kenya seem very far removed from the frontline in western Sudan. The Foreign Minister has suggested having a final signature in Africa—contrary to what Senator Danforth is proposing—which seems more appropriate than Washington.
In Darfur, the collapse of talks sponsored by the Chad President last month has brought further conflict. Two previous ceasefires have failed. According to Amnesty International, more than 200 people, mostly women and children, were reportedly killed this month, when scores of villages around Zalingei in west Darfur were again attacked by Government armed forces and Janjawid militias, including armed rebels from Chad. According to refugee accounts, the marauders came on horses and camels. Homes were burnt, livestock and possessions were looted and many children were abducted. Some 7, 000 have been displaced in the latest raids, some crossing the Chad border and most now needing food and medical attention.
Since last April, more than 700, 000 people have fled their homes, mostly to other towns in Darfur, while more than 90, 000 have crossed the border to Chad. Our own DfID is supporting relief work through the NGOs. UN aid workers intend to move 15, 000 refugees away from the frontier to protect them from cross-border attacks by Sudanese militia and aircraft. The picture is extremely complicated because the dominant ethnic group, the Zaghawa, straddle both sides of the border and have allegiance to different political parties.
The UN estimates that 3, 000 have died in this conflict alone. Human rights agencies like Justice Africa and Anti-Slavery International fear a return to the pattern of civil war in Bahr el-Ghazal in which government-sponsored militia have carried out murderous raids and abductions over many years. As an ASI council member, I do hope the Government of Sudan recognise the strength of feeling on abductions, given all the detailed work done by their own committees with the Dinka people with the support of UNICEF and Save the Children.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, has already said, activists in Darfur and elsewhere, human rights workers and journalists are still being held in detention without charge and many have reported the use of torture. An unelected government that continue to deny their citizens free speech and commit well

713
documented human rights violations are not a government who deserve international recognition as a party to the new peace agreement.
President al-Bashir is not yet behaving like a peacemaker. He has extended the emergency for a year and is seeking an internal military solution in Darfur just at a time when he has gained some international respect in peace talks with the south. By talking with different voices Khartoum will soon lose diplomatic credibility if it does not reopen talks with some mediator from outside, other than Chad which is already a party. At the very least, the GoS and the SPLM should jointly agree to find a solution to Darfur outside the IGAD peace process.
Will Her Majesty's Government join in international protests against the latest raids in Darfur this month, including the use of aircraft by the GoS? Will they urge both parties to the final agreement that it should contain a clause committing them to a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Darfur? Does the Minister agree that it would be premature for the parties to sign before that is done?
Colonel Garang says that peace is now irreversible, but many other critical issues are now being discussed such as the joint armed force and the release of POWs with demobilisation much further down the line. The UN is now to take on a monitoring task through the monitoring and protection teams and I assume that the UK will play some part in that.
Power-sharing arrangements under an interim national administration still have to be decided. Once signed, the peace deal is to remain in force during a six-year period when southern Sudan is at last able to enjoy a degree of autonomy. Like many risky diplomatic deals, this one is built on blocks that are not yet all in place. A successful agreement presupposes reconciliation in the south, which is not a foregone conclusion. The enthusiastic public reception given to the SPLA in Khartoum in November showed that it is ready for power, but a key question is the sharing of jobs in the interim administration and whether the SPLM can bring together the multitude of small parties and political factions from the past. In the north, the picture is not much clearer. The Umma and DUP parties are split and Hassan al-Turabi remains a wild card. His Popular National Congress is now drawing people away from the NIF-dominated National Congress.
Finally, the NGOs, especially those with expertise in human rights and democracy, will have an important role in building confidence in the new administration. The new peace agreement must bring with it a stronger legal framework, leading to a new atmosphere of openness and a greater involvement of civil society in national and local government, and in meeting—above all—the urgent reconstruction needs of the country.
1.43 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Sandwich, along with the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead. rightly paid tribute to the noble Baroness,
714
Lady Cox, for so consistently keeping events in Sudan before your Lordships' House. I am happy to join them in that tribute. I also join my noble friend in paying tribute to the role played by the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, in constantly and intelligently dealing with the peace process and keeping us informed of what is happening in Sudan. Recently, she will recall the Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, about the situation in Darfur. Along with others, I asked supplementary questions about that and was grateful to the Minister for the reply that she gave on that occasion. I look forward to hearing what she has to say today about the continuing problems in Darfur.
Obviously we all welcome the progress made in the peace talks in Kenya, particularly the agreement on wealth sharing that was signed last week. That agreement has managed to cover a number of crucial areas, including the division of revenues, the management of oil resources, and the reconstruction of some of the areas devastated by the war. I wish to talk especially about the role of oil, in the past and future, in helping to facilitate that process of reconstruction.
The agreement seems to give the ravaged areas of southern Sudan, which I visited just over a year ago, a fair deal. Just as importantly, it gives hope to those people whose lives have been adversely affected by the exploitation of the oil fields. In particular, I welcome the provisions in the agreement that those people who have suffered are entitled to some form of compensation. That the Government of Sudan is required to take action in cases in which the exploitation has caused
"fundamental social and environmental problems",
is also progress.
In parenthesis, I might add that the Auxiliary Bishop of Torit, Bishop Akio Johnson Mutek—who has had nine or 10 attempts made on his life—specifically raised the involvement of British oil companies with me during my visit to Torit. He vividly encapsulated the issue by his remark that,
"every barrel of your oil is half full of our blood".
We in the West bear a significant responsibility for financing a government that has practised genocide against its own people. During the past week I have written to the chairman of trustees of one of our most respected major British charities pointing out that their own complicity in the industry has been concurrent with running a disinvestment campaign. In 2000, the charity first asked shareholders and pension funds to consider disinvesting from oil companies operating in Sudan, because they were fuelling the war. It named British Petroleum, the largest minority shareholder in PetroChina, as an indirect investor.
In 2001, the charity called for an EU ban on investment in these oil companies as the only way to ensure that:
"European business is not financing the war nor exacerbating human rights violations".
On that occasion, the charity named Royal Dutch/Shell as well as BP.

715
Today, through the European Coalition on Oil in Sudan, the charity continues to urge,
"shareholders, pension funds and institutional investors to divest from companies active in Sudan's oil extracting industry or trading in Nile Blend Crude, including indirect investors such as BP".
Although the charity has called on others to disinvest, it has failed to do so itself. It talks much about "positive engagement", but it has failed to produce any example of engaging with these companies through its investments. Throughout the whole campaign, the charity has continued to hold shares in both BP and Shell through its own company pension fund. If its own arguments are correct, then it would have to accept that it is complicit in the killing of thousands of Sudanese Christians, animists, and those Muslims who remained in the south.
Despite repeated telephone calls following my letter, I am disappointed to say that I have not had a response from the charity in time for this debate. All of us—especially charities running disinvestment campaigns—need to consider carefully how we use funds. Charities, especially, have a duty to consider the churches and individuals who support them, and should know how their actions will appear to their supporters. On the positive side, oil interests will play a significant part in the shaping of the new Sudan. Those who have investments should, at the very minimum, use their leverage to engage companies in pressing for change.
There remain several outstanding issues on which companies, charities and those who invest in them could act in assisting the peace talks to find a way forward. One of those relates to the proposed system of power sharing, including the rotating presidency, and the quota of ministerial posts that will be given to the SPLA. It is important that the SPLA receives a fair deal here. In particular, it is worth noting that, at present, the NIF Government has numerous parallel systems that govern security and other areas of government, and these may hinder SPLA ministers from exercising any real power.
The relationship between the proposed tiers of government is another area that needs greater clarification and may require further safeguards. There are three tiers proposed for the interim period: national government, the authority governing southern Sudan, and the authorities governing the states and regions. How these different tiers will relate to each other has not yet been properly resolved. Another problematic issue regularly raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, is worth reiterating—the issue of the future arrangements for the three marginalized areas—namely, the Nuba Mountains, the Southern Blue Nile, which is also known as the Funj Region, and Abyei district. That is crucial. Although those areas do not form part of southern Sudan geographically, they share the same ethnicity. People from those areas have fought alongside the south and successive northern governments have consistently underdeveloped them. It is important that, in any final peace deal, the treatment that has taken place in the past is acknowledged and they are treated in the future with
716
fairness and justice. Companies with economic muscle should use it to insist that Khartoum takes that question, and the others that I have raised, seriously.
Those outstanding issues, together with past experience, help to explain why many southerners, while welcoming the progress made so far, continue to be very wary about the sincerity of the NIF. As one southern observer called Natalino Losuba Mana, who runs Norwegian People's Aid in the Yei county, says:
"No one is celebrating yet. Well wait to see these promises of peace fulfilled rather than living in hope. We still feel we will make a very good agreement that will never get beyond paper".
To conclude, the Minister has said that Her Majesty's Government are,
"committed to helping the Sudanese parties reach a comprehensive peace agreement". —[Official Report, 6/11/03; col.951.]
I welcome that approach and hope that our debate today will assist her and her advisers as they continue to help the peace talks to move forward.
1.51 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I join in the congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, which all noble Lords have expressed, not only on returning to the question of Sudan in this House for the nth time, but also for the indefatigable and incredibly brave work that she does in Sudan itself.
A year ago, I said that the Government would have to be generous in reaching a compromise between the SPLA's demand for 60 per cent of the oil revenues and the offer of 10 per cent that was then on the table. As we have heard, they were so prepared, and the final deal of 50–50 between north and south is a fair one, as the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, acknowledged. The extension to non-oil revenues is sensible too.
The establishment of a dual banking system, with an Islamic no-interest section in the north and a conventional section in the south will be a challenging project, because the Bank of Southern Sudan must be established in a vast territory that has had no banking facilities throughout the war. The common currency, the free movement of capital, and semi-independent fiscal regimes in north and south will create formidable difficulties in the management of the system, and the detailed regulations will need a great deal of input from both Islamic and conventional banking experts in the outside world.
Many issues are still outstanding that must be resolved, including the power sharing referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the status of the Nuba Mountains, the Southern Blue Nile and Abyei. I see that the first two of those territories are well on the way to a solution, but the situation in Abyei still poses formidable difficulties as it is home to a largely Dinka population. and a number of SPLA leaders were from that area of the country. However, President al-Bashir was adamant in a nationally televised speech last November that the 1956 boundary between north and south that is the legacy of independence was immutable.

717
There are also security arrangements to be made, including the number and composition of the international ceasefire monitoring force, the relocation of belligerent troops, including particularly the repatriation of government of Sudan forces to the north, and the prevention of incursions in the area of the border between north and south. Details remain to be agreed of the referendum implementation mechanism for the vote on the self-determination of the south in five years' time.
Meanwhile, apart from the peace agreement between north and south, there are other problems, as noble Lords have mentioned. Notably, there is the crisis in Darfur where, as the International Crisis Group pointed out a month ago,
"an end to the war in the south could become the catalyst for a new and bloody chapter in Darfur unless negotiations are broadened to include western rebels".
We must face the fact that there is in Darfur an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe, comparable in scale with what happened in Kosovo prior to the international intervention there. Noble Lords may need to reflect on the difference in treatment between Kosovo and Darfur, in the sense that there has been no call whatever, on behalf of the victims of the conflict, for the international community to go in and help.
As the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, said, 3,000 have been killed in that conflict from the outbreak in February 2003 to the end of the year. For those who have fled across the border into Chad, I have the figure of 95, 000— and 30, 000 in December alone, according to UNHCR. Hundreds of thousands are estimated to be internally displaced in Darfur itself. Precise estimates are impossible because international humanitarian agencies are kept out, but Amnesty International says that it has received lists of hundreds of civilians killed and villages destroyed, as well as the actual names of children said to have been abducted by government-supported militia.
The picture given by refugees in Chad is the same. They told UNHCR that the militia attacked villages, first shooting people caught in the streets. Starting early in the morning, the militia raid village houses, stealing everything including livestock. One refugee from the village of Garuma was quoted in the UNHCR report as saying that on 2 January 150 militiamen arrived on horses and camels in his village. He fled with his pregnant wife and their five children and hid in the surrounding hills, where his wife gave birth one day after they had escaped. The militia set fire to the scrub around the hill and the family had to take refuge again on another small hillock. The entire population of his village—about 2, 000 people—had gone into the surrounding countryside or moved to the nearby villages or crossed the border into Chad.
When I raised the matter of Darfur in the debate on 6 November, to which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred, the Minister acknowledged the problem in Darfur and said that we would continue to press for unfettered access. She did not respond to the suggestion that the African Union should consider the wider implications of the conflict. However, there are now African voices, such as the respected Kenyan newspaper, The Nation, calling for the international community to
718
seek ways in which to address the crisis in the region. Chad is a poor country and its eastern region bordering the epicentre of the crisis in western Darfur is semi-arid. It simply cannot cope with a flood of destitute refugees, and Sudan should he told in no uncertain terms that its conduct towards civilians in Darfur is intolerable.
The noble Lord, Lord Clarke, covered amply the serious problems of human rights. I am particularly concerned about the alleged rule of the Sharia that requires 100 lashes to be imposed on unmarried women who become pregnant after being raped. That includes two cases that have been taken up by our ambassador in Khartoum of teenage girls whose appeals against sentence are still awaited. As I wrote to Chris Mullin in November, we have to say plainly that such penalties are unacceptable. He replied a month ago that we would press for a response to the representations already made about those cases. It would not be sufficient for the girls' appeals to be granted on some technicality; it is the law of zina itself that is contrary to natural justice and should be repealed. I hope that we will not be deterred by false considerations of cultural sensitivity from saying so to the Sudanese Government.
There are also the numerous cases, to which the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, referred, of detention without trial, execution and attacks on freedom of the press. The Sudanese Foreign Minister, Mustapha Osman Ismail, says that he wants a final peace agreement with the south to be signed in Africa and not in Washington, as President Bush has suggested, to show that Africans can solve African problems. That is an excellent proposal. Why should not Khartoum demonstrate that Sudan can also deal with its other problems by simultaneously stopping the attacks in Darfur and ending cruel punishments, executions and arbitrary detentions? It might gain a reputation for itself not only for statesmanship in ending the north-south conflict but for a new initiative on human rights in the whole of Africa.
1.59 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I warmly congratulate my noble friend Lady Cox on securing this timely debate on the situation in Sudan, and add my tributes for all the marvellous work that she does to those made by other noble Lords today. As I said before, and I will say again, it is especially important that we discuss the situation in Sudan regularly, because, as many of your Lordships have pointed out, it is extremely volatile and is subject to almost weekly change. There is no doubt that everyone is delighted by steps towards peace in a country that has been dominated by a civil war for the past 20 years. We welcome the agreement to share government revenues, particularly from oil, as we heard from the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, as well as the planned new authority in the south of the country.
The situation in Sudan has come a long way. We congratulate all those involved in bringing the agreement about. For the Islamist regime now to say hat it is prepared to allow more freedom of religion and to let the south hold a referendum on succession in six years' time,

719
along with power sharing, is a significant shift. However, there are still vital issues that, if left neglected, could undo all the progress made so far. I speak of the regions ignored by the agreement. First, the agreement fails to express clearly how the marginal areas of the Southern Blue Nile, the Nuba mountains and the Abyei will be governed, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. What steps are being taken to ensure that these area interests are represented and will come under the new authority? Of course, the most significant of ignored regions is Darfur, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Cox, and most other noble Lords.
Conflict in the three states of Darfur in western Sudan has brought a huge humanitarian crisis to the Chadian border. Fighting continues in this region, which is excluded from the agreement signed the other day. According to the UN World Food Programme, it has caused the displacement of around 1 million people, about 95, 000 refugees, including up to 30, 000 during December, who have fled fighting between the forces loyal to the government in Khartoum and the Sudanese People's Liberation Movement, as well as tribal and ethnic clashes.
The UN has recently launched an emergency appeal for 11 million dollars to cover the food needs of 60, 000 of the most vulnerable Sudanese refugees. Will the Minister tell us what contribution HMG will make to this fund? What other support are they providing to try to prevent worsening of the humanitarian crisis? As well as the refugees in Chad, there are 1 million internally displaced people. Killings and damage to land contribute to this year's poor agricultural production, despite earlier promises of a satisfactory yield. The situation in the south of Darfur is apparently especially precarious due to the desert environment of the area.
On Monday 12 January, the UN reported that the needs of the Darfur region could not be met due to insecurity. A spokesman said that only 15 per cent of the people are in areas accessible by the UN. The prolific supply of small arms, increased banditry have led to a complete breakdown in law and order on the ground. Meanwhile, the UN Children's Fund has reported growing numbers of displaced children working as domestic labour, prostitutes and beggars. It has been reported too that the Sudanese Government are not fully protecting the lives and property of relief workers in the Darfur region, let alone its citizens. This will be the end of the tentative steps to peace in Sudan unless it is immediately addressed. I hope that the noble Baroness will tell us in winding up what Her Majesty's Government are planning to do about the continued problems in Darfur and its integration into the rest of Sudan.
Christian Aid, among other NGOs, has expressed a particular concern regarding the effective verification and monitoring of the agreement, including ceasefire arrangements. There are still unconfirmed reports of fighting in south Sudan, including attacks on the oil fields. Will the Minister tell the House what action or plans Her Majesty's Government are undertaking to
720
support the monitoring of the situation, and what measures are in place to bring parties to account if they do so breach the agreements?
Now that there is an agreement in at least part of Sudan, what measures are being taken to implement and support a thorough survey of the condition of the country? We are particularly worried that the devastating spread of HIV/AIDS, the displacement of large numbers of people, and the rape that tends to accompany warfare, will have created ideal conditions for the further rapid and widespread transmission of the virus. This support, as we have seen, can significantly affect a country's ability to get back on its feet.
I have touched on but some of the main points surrounding the situation in Sudan as a whole. Darfur continues to be a critical issue that cannot be ignored. It undermines the great steps forward taken in the current agreement, and places at risk the future development and reduction of poverty in the country as a whole.
2.5 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for bringing the recent developments in Sudan to the attention of the House. I welcome her continued dedication to the plight of the Sudanese people, and I thank her for all the advice that she has given to the Government on this issue. It has been valuable to have this relationship with her.
The last time we discussed developments in Sudan, things were looking more positive than for some time before that. Excellent progress continues to be made on the peace talks in Naivasha between the Government and the SPLM. Both sides have now described the peace talks as irreversible, and we hope that they will continue to provide a framework agreement soon. Although problems persist in some areas—and we have heard a great deal about that in the past 45 minutes—there is, at last, a real chance for peace in Sudan, and a real chance to end the suffering of the Sudanese people.
It has been freely acknowledged around the House that as is so often the case in peace talks, we are investing heavily in this process, while at the same time acknowledging, as so many of your Lordships have, that there continue to be some terrible problems. There are problems around human rights, including, as my noble friend Lord Clarke of Hampstead reminded us, press freedom, including some of the appalling punishments that your Lordships have described. There is also the enormously difficult situation in Darfur. The noble Baroness concentrated much of her address on the situation in Darfur, but she also rightly acknowledged that the peace process is going ahead, and that point was also acknowledged by my noble friend Lord Clarke.
On 7 January, the Government and the SPLM signed an agreement on wealth-sharing arrangements, which is an important factor in what we are discussing. That provides for the division of oil revenues, a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, rightly drew our

721
attention, the banking arrangements and the creation of a joint transition team to prepare budget estimates and raise funds for reconstruction. This is a significant step towards peace in Sudan. I would be happy to arrange a full briefing on this issue, if noble Lords have not yet had one.
I recognise the strength of the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, put forward about disinvestment. I hope that he will agree that while we are making progress in this area, and while we may be pressing forward on the peace issues, now may not be the time to press the lobby on disinvestment. The oil in Sudan should be used for the benefit of all. It is the oil that may provide the platform for the improvement overall in the conditions in Sudan. I hope that the agreement signed on 7 January will allow us to give that greater reality on the ground.
The parties are continuing to talk about resolving the remaining issues on power-sharing in the three conflict areas of Southern Blue Nile, the Nuba Mountains and Abyei. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, reminded us of that point. There are important issues to be resolved here, and there must be a genuinely inclusive, democratic system of governance that respects the rights of all Sudanese people. That is the best way to ensure popular ownership of the peacekeeping arrangements and thus the sustainability of any future peace arrangements. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings—who made some very forceful points on some of these areas of outstanding difficulties—that those matters have not yet been resolved and are still under discussion. The points that she has made are very well taken in those continuing peace discussions.
Given the progress already made, the parties hope to have a framework agreement within weeks, and a comprehensive package within a few months. There is still work to he done on those issues. If we are able to get such a comprehensive package it will be a real achievement, one to which the United Kingdom will have made a significant contribution through our special representative for Sudan, Alan Goulty, and the joint Foreign Office/DfID Sudan Unit, as well as the embassy in Khartoum.
Many of your Lordships have played a crucial role in that, including the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I should also like to place on record ministerial thanks for all the work and commitment that officials in both the FCO and DfID have dedicated to this project in the past 18 months, a time when we have been in constant contact with all parties, offering support and advice.
Let us turn to the issue of United Kingdom financial assistance. As many of your Lordships said, ultimately it does not matter what is written on the piece of paper—what really matters is how that piece of paper is implemented. Of course what is on the paper is important, but the real issue is what happens on the ground. Implementation is going to be even more difficult than negotiating the agreement. The support of the international community, as many of your Lordships have acknowledged, will be crucial to ensuring that the peace holds.
722
The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, asked various questions on UK financial assistance. We have allocated£28 million to Sudan for 2003–04. There are plans for a donor conference in Oslo once a comprehensive peace agreement is secured. We would expect our contribution to increase significantly in future years. We will of course need to co-ordinate carefully with the United Nations and other governments and non-governmental organisations working in Sudan. Co-operation and careful planning are the only way to ensure that Sudan gets maximum benefit from the external assistance that it receives.
Sudan will also need our help to meet the humanitarian, recovery and reintegration needs of its people. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, was absolutely right when he spoke about the importance of this implementation issue. The UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations has already carried out a scoping mission to plan for a UN peace support operation. We will continue to help with the demobilisation, disarmament and reintegration of combatants, and local level peace-building work.
There will also be an opportunity for Sudan to develop more effective systems of governance, particularly of justice and security, and in terms of public administration. That of course includes the development of the capacity of civil society in the fields of human and child rights, gender and legal awareness so that they are able to engage with donors as partners and critically engage with the government.
There will also be much work to be done with the Sudanese to develop and implement policies that really do benefit the poor people. The noble Lord used some compelling language about poverty in relation to the oil industry. We acknowledge that it is enormously important to address the poverty issue. Improved macroeconomic management will be key in that endeavour, as will resolution of Sudan's debt problems. Once an agreement has been signed, the UK will chair a support group of key international creditors and donors to help ensure timely co-ordinated action for clearance of debt arrears. I hope that that, too, is a piece of good news.
The relevant international agencies and financial institutions are planning joint assessment missions in both the north and the south to look at the requirements for development assistance. The Sudanese parties must obviously be fully involved in the process and feel full ownership of the outcomes of such a process.
Many noble Lords were very worried about the human rights issues. We continue to be very concerned indeed about the human rights position in the whole of Sudan, regardless of religious or ethnic background. The promotion of human rights through advocacy with the government and support for NGOs remains one of this Government's priorities.
I assure your Lordships that we raise the human rights issue on a regular basis, both bilaterally and as part of the EU/Sudan dialogue. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development, Hilary Benn, discussed the human rights situation with the President of Sudan and others during his visit to

723
Khartoum on 10 December. He then raised the issue of the cross-amputation sentence on a 16 year-old boy who has been accused of armed robbery.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that we arc also raising the sentence of flogging on the 16 year-old girl to whom he referred. The punishment has been postponed until 23 January. I am not clear at this juncture whether this is merely a postponement or whether it will be a rehearing of the sentence, which is indeed a savage and terrible one. I undertake to keep the noble Lord informed on that as he has made such a point of raising it with my honourable friend.
The question of Sharia law is a very difficult one; it raises a whole range of issues. We respect the view that Sharia law has some part to play. However, I am bound to say that we also share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that the application of these very extreme punishments is inconsistent with international human rights standards and with Sudan's obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. I hope that that gives him the explicit assurance that he seeks.
We have also raised the issues raised by my noble friend Lord Clarke of Hampstead about the suppression of freedom of the press. Our ambassador in Khartoum spoke to the Minister of Justice about this matter on 22 December. We continue to press on that issue.
Similarly, we continue to press on the issue surrounding the recent report of arrests of political activists, supporters of NGOs and trades unionists. Our embassy in Khartoum has raised these issues with the Government in Sudan who have acknowledged our concerns and who have indeed undertaken to look into these matters and report back to us. I shall of course report hack to the noble Lord on that.
We need to monitor all these issues very closely. We were disappointed that, despite our hard work and that of our EU partners, we did not win the vote on the UN Commission on Human Rights last year. It was lost, as many of your Lordships know, on 16 April 2003. The defeat meant the termination of the mandate of the special rapporteur. We now have to consider how to tackle this issue in 2004. I should also tell your Lordships very quickly that, last week, in the margins of the regional conference on democracy and human rights held in Sanaa, my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith was able to discuss some of these issues with the Sudanese Foreign Minister. I hope that that news also is welcome to your Lordships.
I still have some time until the 1.30 p.m. restart time. With your Lordships' permission, perhaps I can take three or four more minutes to say something about what happened in Darfur. Many of your Lordships concentrated your remarks on the concerns that remain in Darfur. Your Lordships are right that the situation is very worrying. Insecurity in Darfur means that there is limited access, and so there is limited ability to assess the situation properly on the ground. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, pointed out, the requirements in all sectors—food, water and
724
shelter—are enormous. I think that the noble Lord used the word "catastrophic" at one point. These are real problems.
Civilian protection also is a major concern, with repeated reports of human rights abuses perpetrated by various factions, as described by your Lordships this afternoon. Against that background, the breakdown of the peace talks—these are of course separate peace talks—between the government and the Sudan Liberation Movement was a severe blow. All sides should know from bitter experience that a military solution is not in prospect and that peace and reconciliation is the only way forward to a brighter future for Darfur.
Our ambassador in Khartoum and the UK special representative speak to the Government of Sudan and the various Darfur movements on an almost daily basis. We are fully engaged; that is the point which I am very anxious to get over to your Lordships. Indeed, the special representative is in the region this week and has held discussions with the First Vice-President, among others.
By providing for a truly decentralised federal system, the overall Sudan peace agreement should help address some of the root causes of the conflict in Darfur. But in the immediate short-term a ceasefire must be re-established to allow unfettered humanitarian access. We have offered our good offices to all parties to help them reach a peaceful solution. We have also suggested, as many of your Lordships have, that there may be a role for the international community in assisting in the implementation of a peace deal.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, also raised points on unimpeded humanitarian access. It is absolutely vital that unimpeded access is given. That is another point that has been raised over and over again.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, wanted to know how we are monitoring these issues. In the past few days Her Majesty's Government have agreed to provide a temporary senior humanitarian affairs officer to assist the United Nations humanitarian co-ordinator and humanitarian agencies on the ground to strengthen the continuing United Nations and international crisis response. Therefore, we, in this country, are making another effort to put another person on the ground for the monitoring purposes which I acknowledge are enormously important. I assure the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that we have raised with the authorities the military and aerial bombardment to which he referred. We have protested about that; we have raised those points. I hope that I shall be able to report further on that.
We are also engaged with the EU heads of mission in Khartoum. We had discussions earlier this month. We and others in the EU have already pressed the Government of Sudan about Darfur and where it stands in the dialogue. Of course, we are pressing through the United Nations and the Secretary General's special envoy; and we are engaged with the United States.

725
The Sudanese people know as well as any people anywhere how fragile and complicated peace building can be. It is all too easy for the perhaps disillusioned few to threaten the process. No one underestimates the difficulties that we face, in particular the difficulties in Darfur. But as noble Lords have acknowledged Sudan now has a real opportunity to bring to an end the suffering of its people. It is an opportunity which has to he seized.
It is crucial that everyone, in all parts of Sudan, get to appreciate what is at stake—the real prizes of peace, security, stability and poverty reduction—and that everyone in Sudan feels that they have a say and a stake in their country's future. It is the best way to ensure that any peace agreement holds good for the future.
The price is great, not just for Sudan, but for the entire region. A peace agreement in Sudan brought about under African mediation and implemented in Africa by Africans would be further evidence that while the continent may have its problems, it also has its solutions.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 2.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 2.23 to 2.30 p.m.]

Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee.
Clause 4[Appointment of Lord Chief Justice and Lords Justices of Appeal]
Baroness Harris of Richmond Baroness Harris of Richmond moved Amendment No.30:
Page 2, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 3 and insert—
"(3) The Prime Minister shall make recommendations to Her Majesty concerning all appointments under subsection (1) or (2), based on recommendations made by the First and Deputy First Minister acting jointly, in such forms as the Prime Minister may specify. "
The noble Baroness said: With regard to the appointment of the Lord Chief Justice and Lords Justices of Appeal, we believe that the published Bill has failed to meet the expectation raised in the updated implementation plan published by the Northern Ireland Office that the Prime Minister will appoint persons to these positions,
"based on the recommendations of the First and Deputy First Minister".
Instead the Bill has diminished the role of the First and Deputy First Ministers by requiring the Prime Minister only to "consider" any recommendation for appointment made by the First and Deputy First Ministers. That falls short of the Criminal Justice Review recommendation on this point which the Government purported to accept without qualification in the first plan. The review has provided that responsibility for making recommendations for the appointment of the Lord Chief Justice and Lords
726
Justices of Appeal would lie with the Prime Minister, but on the basis of recommendations from the First and Deputy First Ministers.
The review recommendation appears to give greater weight to the recommendations of the First and Deputy First Ministers. Therefore, I ask the Minister why that wording was not incorporated in the Bill given that the same commitment had also been given in the updated implementation plan? Moreover, it seems only consistent with the transfer of judicial appointments from the expected to reserved category of the Northern Ireland Act that the First and Deputy First Ministers would, after devolution, have greater powers in relation to such appointments. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Elton): this amendment is carried, I shall be unable to call Amendment No.31 for reason of pre-emption.
Lord Glentoran: I have some inclination to support this amendment. However, I shall shortly move Amendments Nos.31, 32, 33 and 34 which cover basically the same subject, as I understand it, although perhaps our arguments will be different. The points that the noble Baroness made in relation to previous documents, including the review, are all very relevant. I am a little surprised that there is no noble Lord on the Labour Back Benches to take part in this debate. However, that is not my business or the Government's. I support the noble Baroness's amendment, but I would not support it were she to press it as I wish to move my Amendments Nos.31, 32, 33 and 34.
Lord Filkin: This amendment seeks to require the Prime Minister to base his recommendations to Her Majesty on the most senior judicial appointments on the recommendations of the First and Deputy First Ministers. That is how we interpret the amendment's wording and intent.
Under Clause 4 the Prime Minister will be required to consider the recommendations of the First and Deputy First Ministers before he makes a recommendation to Her Majesty. The First and Deputy First Ministers' recommendations will have been made after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice whose views will be made known to the Prime Minister. Our interpretation at least of the subsequent clutch of amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, was that they pointed in the other direction from that, but we may have misinterpreted what the words,
"as to the substance or
meant. Time will tell regarding that matter which we shall discuss later. If that were to be the case, I should suggest to the Committee that we are steering a middle course between the Prime Minister being no more than a postman—which I believe is the thrust of the Liberal Democrat recommendation—and how we interpret the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran; namely, that essentially the commission rather than the First and Deputy First Ministers makes the recommendation.

727
I hope that the Committee will agree that the process as debated at Second Reading strikes a right and necessary balance by ensuring a central role for the First and Deputy First Ministers and the Prime Minister in a robust and fair procedure. The Prime Minister will, of course, take very seriously the recommendations of the two Ministers acting jointly. We must rely on him to act appropriately. One could not conceive of a Prime Minister lightly dismissing the recommendations of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. However, one would not need to be too Machiavellian in nature not to conceive of some circumstances in which he might wish to test, or have some further exploration or probing of, that process. In the circumstances in which we find ourselves, I believe that the discretion that is available to him is exactly right. For those reasons—while one would hope that we are always in a situation where he would be no more than a postman—I do not think that it is wise to remove the possibility of him having some discretion and influence on the process.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: This is an interesting topic. I should be interested to know from the noble Baroness who will reply to the debate on her amendment what the grounds are for distinguishing between the situation in Northern Ireland in this regard and that in England and Wales. In England and Wales the appointment of the very senior judiciary is made on the recommendation of the Prime Minister to Her Majesty. If I have understood correctly the import of the noble Baroness's amendment, and as has just been said, so far as concerns Northern Ireland the Prime Minister would simply be a postman, in which case why have him or her there at all? Although one recognises that Northern Ireland is in many respects different from the rest of the United Kingdom, I do not think that there is a sufficient reason to distinguish between the constitutional arrangements in this regard. However, I should be interested to hear from the noble Baroness why she believes that there is sufficient reason so to do.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: I take the point that has been made. I reiterate that the measure concerns the recommendations of the First and Deputy First Ministers, but the Bill has diminished their role. I shall consider very carefully what the Minister said. We may return to the matter on Report. In the mean time, I shall reflect on what the Minister said.
Lord Glentoran: Will the noble Baroness tell the House whether the Minister's interpretation is correct—if it is, mine was entirely wrong—that the Liberal Democrat amendment views the Prime Minister solely as a postman?
Baroness Harris of Richmond: No, indeed, we do not consider that that is the case. As I said, I shall reflect on what the Minister said. We may return to the matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No.31:
Page 3, line 3, at end insert ", and
(c) consult the Lord Chancellor"
The noble Lord said: The amendment is about the same subject: the appointment of the Lord Chief Justice. As the clause stands, as the Minister will appreciate having read the amendment, we are not happy. We have grouped the amendments because they all focus on Clause 4, which changes the arrangements for the appointment of the Lord Chief Justice and the Lords Justices of Appeal.
It would be profitable as we are in Committee to have just one debate on the shortcomings of the clause. The amendments are grouped so that we can debate our concerns under one heading. I shall speak to Amendments Nos.31 to 34 and focus on three main points. Essentially, we are not satisfied that the appointment of the most senior judicial officials in Northern Ireland, has the necessary degree of consultation between appropriate parties. In the Bill the chain of consultation is as follows:
Subsection (3) provides for the Prime Minister to ask the First and Deputy First Minister for a recommendation about the appointment "in such a form" as he may specify, which he must consider before he makes a recommendation to Her Majesty the Queen.
Subsection (4) provides for the First and Deputy First Ministers to be obliged to consult the Lord Chief Justice or the most senior Lord Justice of Appeal before making a recommendation to the Prime Minister.
Subsection (5) says that the Judicial Appointments Commission must advise the First and Deputy First Ministers on the procedure they should adopt in formulating a recommendation to the Prime Minister.
Our amendments seek to alter that change of consultation in three principal areas. First, consultation with the Lord Chancellor should be obligatory—that follows the thesis that we have pursued throughout—both for the Prime Minister; and under subsection (3); and the First and Deputy First Ministers in formulating their recommendations under subsection (4). Amendment No.31 would require the Prime Minister to consult the Lord Chancellor under subsection (3)—that is during his consideration of the recommendations put forward to him by the First and Deputy First Ministers. Amendment No.32 would require the First and Deputy First Ministers to consult the Lord Chancellor as well as the Lord Chief Justice under subsection (4) before they make their recommendations to the Prime Minister.
My noble friend Lord Kingsland put forward the fundamental reasons why we think the Lord Chancellor, as the head of the judiciary and having taken the judicial oath, should be responsible for, or at least be part of the consultation process in, judicial appointments. That is, surely, nowhere more necessary than when consulting before the appointment of the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Justices of Appeal.
Our second major point is highlighted by Amendment No.33. Subsection (5) currently has the Judicial Appointments Commission give advice to the First and Deputy First Ministers on the procedure which should be adopted when making a recommendation under subsection (3). We are bemused as to why they should only give advice on procedure and not on potential candidates themselves. Surely the whole point of the JAC is to make judicial appointments. It should know better than the First and Deputy First Ministers and say from a less political and more impartial basis who should be put forward as worthy recommendations for such senior judicial positions. Amendment No.33 would have them give advice, not only on the procedure to adopt for recommendations hut, on the substance—perhaps on a short list of names of those who the Ministers consider to merit recommendation for the appointments.
Our third point follows that. We believe that there would be serious repercussions if the First and Deputy First Ministers put only one name forward to the Prime Minister under subsection 3(a). It would be hard for that not to be an overtly political decision, especially when currently the First and Deputy First Ministers are hardly likely to both support the same candidate. It might be a case, as happens in many other areas—in that little country, in my little country—of "your choice this time; my turn next time"—orange today and green tomorrow. The political implications of that are more alarming when one bears in mind that the Prime Minister might reject the one name put forward. I hope that lie would maintain that right. Therefore, we suggest that in Amendment No.34 at least three names be put forward in the recommendation by the First and Deputy First Ministers under subsection (3)(a) from which the Prime Minister must choose one.
That proposal would be in accordance with established practice, at least as it was under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. The respective merits of the judges recommended were explained and a ranking offered. The Prime Minister is not obliged to choose any of them under the amendment, nor should he be as a matter of statute, although normally he might do so. But he needs to be well informed of their perceived respective strengths and possible weaknesses, not merely to know who is the first choice of the First and Deputy First Ministers. I hope that I have made myself clear. I beg to move.
2.45 p.m.
Lord Filkin: I recognise the importance of the issues, the clause and the amendments. We have understood, as have our lawyers, that the thrust of the Liberal Democrat recommendation in the previous amendment left no discretion for the Prime Minister. I would be pleased to hear if that was not their intent, but that is the meaning of the words to us. As I have signalled, the Bill comes between two more extreme positions than that which we have adopted in this part of the Bill. It may be helpful if I put briefly on record the process as it would operate in practice. I am
730
suggesting that, because I found it difficult and because in practice they work in reverse chronological order—going backwards rather than forwards in time when being read.
The first part of the process is essential—that before any vacancy arises the Judicial Appointments Commission would advise the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on the procedure that they should adopt in formulating a recommendation to the Prime Minister on the appointment of the Lord Chief Justice or a Lord Justice of Appeal. So the procedure would have to be set out. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister would have considered the advice of the commission and agreed, with the approval of the Prime Minister, the procedure that would be used. So, the commission would make recommendations to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister; they would consider a process; and that would then require the agreement of the Prime Minister, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister before there was a vacancy.
The agreed procedure would be essential to ensure the overall integrity, fairness and transparency of the recommendations. One would expect that it would cover issues such as criteria; whether the process would involve applications or expressions of interest; the type of evidence on which criteria would be measured; the stage at which the Lord Chief Justice would be consulted; and the time that the overall procedure would take. Essentially, the process by which recommendations are to emerge, and the process for testing candidates—if that is not too formal a term—would have been set up.
Assuming that a vacancy arose, the Prime Minister would require the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to make a recommendation to him in such form as the Prime Minister specified. That would allow the Prime Minister to ask for a single name, or perhaps two or three. The wording "in such form" would give discretion to the Prime Minister to decide on the number of names to be put forward and whether they were ranked. Again, we believe that the discretion provided by the Bill is right.
The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister then apply the procedure in reaching their recommendations. Before finalising them, they consult with the Lord Chief Justice and then submit their recommendations to the Prime Minister together with whatever views the Lord Chief Justice has expressed to them. Alternatively, the Lord Chief Justice may copy his views directly to the Prime Minister. As we signalled at Second Reading, we felt it right that there should be a direct route for advice from the Lord Chief Justice to the Prime Minister before he makes his decision.
The Prime Minister will then consider the recommendations and will no doubt have regard to the advice that the Lord Chief Justice gave to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. The Prime Minister will then make a recommendation to Her Majesty, who will make the appointment. I apologise for taking time to explain the procedure, but it is a fundamental issue of concern to the Committee. It is our interpretation of the meaning of the clause.

731
I turn to the specifics. On consultation with the Lord Chancellor, the process will happen only when devolution has occurred. When devolution has taken place, the Lord Chancellor will not have a role with regard to Northern Ireland. No one can fetter the discretion of the Prime Minister—if he wants to consult with the Lord Chancellor, the ways of government give him plenty of opportunity to do so. But it is wrong in principle to put that on the face of the Bill for the devolution reasons I have given, and perhaps it goes into more detail than is appropriate. It is possible for the Prime Minister to consult if he wants to do so.
I make a similar point with regard to the second issue about the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. They have to consult with the Lord Chief Justice, as well they should not least because his views will be communicated to the Prime Minister before the Prime Minister takes a view. We cannot see why they should not also consult with the Lord Chancellor for the reasons I have previously given. The Lord Chancellor does not have a role in the post-devolution world about which we are talking.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, then asked: why only advice on procedure and not on substance? The Judicial Appointments Commission will be giving advice to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister on the process by which the selection will be run. I do not know what advice they will give—who can?—but clearly there must be the kind of procedures one would expect to see when senior and skilled appointments are put in place. There must be a fair process for indicating the people who can apply, clear criteria and clear processes for testing those criteria. That is the nature of their advice.
The process might or might not involve members of the Judicial Appointments Commission. As the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, says, they have great expertise in these issues, but it is left open to them what they advise and then the process the First Minister and Deputy First Minister agree. But of course the First Minister and Deputy First Minister can agree that process only if they agree it with the Prime Minister as well.
That may sound complex, but it is complex for a purpose. It tries to ensure that no one person has absolute power in this situation. We believe that is right. There are some health checks and balances on the process as a consequence.
On the final point relating to the Prime Minister—it would be the case if the amendment were carried—the Prime Minister would have the choice of three names. The Bill as it stands allows the Prime Minister to ensure that that happens if he wants it to. Clause 4(3) includes the words "in such form". That means that if the Prime Minister decides as much, he can at the beginning of the process specify that he wants the best three candidates, ranked or unranked, with reasons. Therefore, as the Bill stands, he is at liberty. He may always want that; he may never want that; he might want two names; or he might want more. He should have discretion, which is the thrust of the argument put by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran.
732
The world changes and one cannot always envisage how and in what way. That discretion left with the Prime Minister may be wise and helpful. It allows him to do exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, wants, but does not specify that something must always be the case if he judges it to be otherwise. That is our clear view of how the process would work and our suggestion on how it would intercept with the objectives raised by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. I respect those objectives.
I believe that I have covered everything and perhaps a little more. The clause as debated on Second Reading reflects Recommendations 75 and 85 of the Criminal Justice Review. I hope that that explanation has been helpful.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: That was a helpful explanation of the Government's understanding of the effect of the procedure. As the Minister said, at first sight it is slightly confusing because it starts at the end and works back to the beginning.
Perhaps I may make a textual point. The Minister said that the Prime Minister may require the recommendation of the Judicial Appointments Commission to specify one, two, three names or whatever. He says that that is achieved by the words,
"in such form as the Prime Minister may specify".
I find that confusing because on reading the Bill I asked myself whether the Prime Minister would be able to specify that more than one recommendation should be made. He has told us that that is the intention and no doubt his advice is that that is achieved by the use of those words.
That is confusing and I wonder whether the provision ought not to be spelt out more explicitly. It could be done by inserting another subsection such as,
"Whatever form the Prime Minister shall specify shall in any event relate to whether the candidate shall be alone or with one or two others".
But I am wondering whether it would not be better and safer for the Government to adopt the policy of requiring that in any event there shall be more than one candidate. That would remove from the Prime Minister the discretion to ask simply for a single candidate. My noble friend Lord Glentoran has touched upon the reasons that are peculiar to Northern Ireland.
There is much value in looking at the procedure adopted by the Church of England for the appointment of bishops. Lambeth sends two names to the Prime Minister and he can choose one or the other. They are listed in order of preference. He can say, "I don't like either of these. Try again". Under the settlement the Church achieved after a good deal of worry, it cannot send a single name.
Lord Filkin: Yes, it is our clear and firm view that the words,
"in such form as the Prime Minister may specify",

733
leave it open to him to require one, two, three names or whatever. However, as this is an important issue I will treble check and will correspond with noble Lords. I have not received advice which puts doubt on that and signals a weakness, but it is critical.
Why not spell it out more clearly? If it is clear enough and the lawyers' advice is clear—and I shall confirm that in writing—there is no need to. Why not specify that there must always be two or three candidates? In essence, that sits on the delicate issue of how the Government are trying to work towards a devolved settlement. One would hope for a situation in which devolution works perfectly and that therefore the Prime Minister's role in the process would be minimal. There are good reasons for wishing that to be the case: the more that Northern Ireland is able to decide on its own affairs in ways that meet the tests of merit and probity that one would expect in a good society, the better. Therefore, there could be circumstances in which the Prime Minister was happy for one name to come forward.
There could be other circumstances when it was felt to be wiser to allow two or three names. In order to allow flexibility in seeing how devolution develops, it would be good to leave the element of discretion in the Bill as it currently is.
3 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble Lord for those explanations. They were very helpful. I am afraid that my brain is such that I shall need to study his comments more carefully in Hansard next week, and I may wish to return to this matter.
I have one question for the noble Lord: what happens before devolution? I thought that the idea of introducing the Bill now was that most of what it contains can be implemented without devolution. The noble Lord said that "in such form" the Prime Minister may make a request, and so on. I have tabled an amendment to try to ensure that that does not happen and that such a provision is not enacted before devolution. But if that amendment were not agreed to, and were the Bill to be enacted before devolution, can the noble Lord explain what would happen?
Lord Filkin: Yes. I should have expressed myself more clearly. The Bill will be enacted before devolution. Were there to be a vacancy—I hope and pray that that there is not to be one shortly—it would not he possible for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to make a recommendation unless they were in place and devolution had occurred. That is what I was signalling. Unless they are in office and the Assembly has been reconvened and is functioning, there will be no one to fulfil the functions as set out in Clause 4.
Lord Glentoran: I hate to go into detail, but this is the right time. If there is no First Minister and Deputy First Minister and no devolution, but a Judicial Appointments Commission is in place—let us assume that there is a Lord Chancellor or that the Secretary of State at the constitutional department has taken the
734
judicial oath—perhaps we shall need to have something in Hansard on how the Government see these appointments taking place.
Lord Filkin: Were there to be a vacancy for a Lord Chief Justice but devolution had not happened, the Lord Chancellor would make the appointment under the existing Act in the way that has just taken place.
Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble Lord for that, and I shall pursue that matter on Report, having read Hansard carefully. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.32 to 34 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I had not intended to pursue this issue until I heard the Minister clearly make a statement that although, before devolution, we were previously promised that the commission would not be formed—it was not advised when the Criminal Justice Review took place. That is really too much. Within two years, the Government will go back on a promise made to this House when the 2002 Act was passed.
Lord Filkin: I may have misunderstood the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, on that point. As I was seeking to signal, we are bringing forward the establishment of the Judicial Appointments Commission, so that these elements in the appointment of the Lord Chief Justice cannot take place until devolution has happened. In earlier parts of our discussion, I sought to set out why I thought that appointments to the Judicial Appointments Commission were in the interests of Northern Ireland in advance of devolution. That matter was dealt with before lunch. Under Clause 4, those do not operate unless devolution has taken place.
The provision in Clause 4 also brings the process making senior judicial appointments more closely into line with the Criminal Justice Review's recommendations.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that matter. If I misheard or misunderstood what he said to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, I apologise. I am reassured by what he has just said and I am grateful.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Removal or suspension from listed judicial offices]:
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Kingsland: So concerned are the Opposition about this clause, that I thought it appropriate to devote the whole of my wind-up speech at Second Reading to it.

735
What is the motive behind this extraordinary change? It is not as though we have any evidence upon which to base it. Not only did the Act which the Government are now seeking to amend receive Royal Assent as recently as 2002; but we have as yet no experience whatever of its operation. In the absence of any convincing answer from the Minister, I am forced to conclude that the effect of the change will be to elevate political considerations as a factor in the dismissal of judges.
The 2002 Bill, already and inexplicably, removes the requirement of an address of both Houses of Parliament for the dismissal of newly appointed Northern Irish High Court judges—a requirement that has existed for more than 400 years. At least, however, under the 2002 Act, the First and Second Ministers will not be able to dismiss such a judge "without the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice"—a person himself only removable on an address of both Houses of Parliament.
Now, under the new Bill, the expression "without the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice" is to be replaced with the expression "except under consultation with the Lord Chief Justice". I ask the noble Lord the Minister: why on earth?
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: Perhaps I may add my voice to that of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, on this issue. Again, I point out that less than two years ago the Government took the view—not blindly I hope, but with consideration—that it was appropriate to secure the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice before a holder of a listed judicial office could be removed or suspended.
Perhaps the Minister can say on how many occasions over the past 18 months the Lord Chief Justice has objected to, or refused to agree to, the removal or suspension of a holder of a listed judicial office. Has he displayed stubbornness and intransigence again and again? If the answer is no—as I suspect it is—then why is this clause in the Bill? If there have been, as I suspect, no such occasions of defiance or conflict as I have outlined, why are we here on this issue?
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, makes a very important point. To reduce the place, position and responsibility of the Lord Chief Justice as blatantly as does this element within the Bill is to elevate the opportunity—opportunities will, inevitably, be taken—for political considerations to gain dominance. With all sincerity, I ask the Government to look very carefully at the implications and the dire potential consequences of this change.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: There can be very few issues more important to the rule of law than those surrounding the circumstances in which a senior judge can be removed. As has already been pointed out, that has been recognised in our constitutional arrangements for 400 years or more. To their credit, the Government
736
patently recognised that in the 2002 Act. They stipulated not only that the recommendation of a tribunal to dismiss a judge and for a judge to be dismissed should be a matter of consultation with the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland; they also stipulated that it should not take place save with his agreement.
In these days of transparent and open government, it would be helpful to know on what basis of consultation with the then Lord Chief Justice that provision was included in that Bill, which was subsequently enacted. Was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carswell—then, Sir Robert Carswell—consulted and may the Committee know what his view about that was? Presumably, he concurred with the provision that his consent should be obtained. I believe that the Government argue that the Criminal Justice Review did not specify that that consent should be obtained. However, one assumes that it was thought necessary, and I should like to know why in 2002 it was felt that it should be obtained.
The noble Baroness, Lady Amos, was kind enough to write to me—for which I am very grateful—following a speech that I made at Second Reading when I alluded to this matter. She was kind enough to say that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carswell, the then Lord Chief Justice, had been consulted about this amendment, which simply requires consultation. She did not tell me what his view had been. It would be helpful to know whether his view has been obtained. She also went on to say that Sir Brian Kerr, his successor as Lord Chief Justice, was to be consulted, and I expect that, by now, he has been. Therefore, I should like to have a good deal more light thrown upon this matter. It seems very strange that the Government now consider it necessary to dilute the requirement for the consent of the Lord Chief Justice to be obtained. I join the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, and also my noble friend Lord Kingsland in asking why.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Filkin: As has been said, the clause removes the formal requirement for the Lord Chief Justice's agreement to the removal or suspension of a person from a listed judicial office. However, the Lord Chief Justice will be consulted on the removal. Clause 5 more closely reflects the recommendation of the Criminal Justice Review.
Perhaps I may set out why we do not believe that there is a risk or a weakness here in relation to the independence of the judiciary. First and fundamentally, the removal of a judicial office holder can only follow the recommendation of a judicial tribunal. Such a tribunal will be brought into existence either by, or in consultation with, the Lord Chief Justice. Therefore, at the start of the process, the Lord Chief Justice will be consulted or he himself may have convened the tribunal.
As the Committee will recall from the 2002 Act, the membership of the tribunal consists of two judges and one lay person. The nature of the judge varies according to the nature of the office holder who is being considered for misconduct. The appointment of

737
the judge to the tribunal is recommended by the Lord Chief Justice. Therefore, the Lord Chief Justice has a very strong hand in setting up the tribunal and in its procedures, its terms of reference and its membership. At its simplest, there will always be two judges and one lay person on such a tribunal.
No judge can be dismissed unless such a tribunal recommends dismissal. That is stated categorically in the legislation. Therefore, the process is effectively in the hands of appropriately senior members of the judiciary with a lay member also present.
The question of who chairs the tribunal varies according to the level of seniority of the judge whose conduct gave sufficient cause for concern that it required a tribunal to investigate the issue. However, it would always be chaired either by a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary—a member of the Appellate Committee in this House—or by the Lord Chief Justice or a Lord Justice of Appeal. One of those three would always chair any judicial tribunal set up to investigate what were thought to be sufficient allegations of misconduct to warrant the tribunal. It is fairly clear that we anticipate that the circumstances in which such tribunals would be needed would arise only rarely, but that does not mean that it is not crucial and appropriate to have them.
I now turn to the other questions that were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, rightly asked about the position of the Lord Chief Justice in such a situation. Like me, the noble Lord will have a chance to look at Hansard, but I hope that I explained the degree of judicial control over the tribunal process which leads to an investigation. The fundamental point is that a judge cannot be removed unless a tribunal so recommends. A tribunal will always be chaired by either the Lord Chief Justice himself, a judicial Member of the House of Lords or a Lord Justice of Appeal.
The question of consultation with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carswell, and Sir Brian Kerr is a difficult issue on which to go into full detail. However, I can give a categorical assurance that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carswell, has been fully consulted on these issues and that Sir Brian Kerr has also recently been consulted by officials in the Northern Ireland court service. Therefore, they have been part of the process of considering this matter, although I am not necessarily putting or not putting their names to it. I shall leave that question suitably anonymous.
I hope that I have explained why it is right to have a process which is so strongly under the control of the judiciary yet which, nevertheless, has a lay element in it. We believe that the clause as set out in the Bill is an appropriate means for investigating allegations of judicial misconduct, should they occur.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he can explain one point. He referred to the need, or the possibility, of a Member of the House of Lords taking part in the final decision.
738
However, is that provision based on the assumption that there will always be Law Lords in your Lordships' House?
Lord Filkin: That is one of the perennial problems of having a sequence of proposals which, as yet. have not all been put in place. I believe that this issue finds expression in the 2002 Act, which refers to members of the Appellate Committee of this House. Should we reach the point where that is changed, clearly amendments will need to be made to part of that Act in order to substitute a "member of the supreme court", if that is the terminology that we use.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I thank the Minister for that explanation. He majored, if I may express it in that way, on the input that the Lord Chief Justice would have in the setting up, and manning, of the tribunal. What I do not recall hearing him say is why it is necessary to make this change now. He has explained that there has been consultation. I can understand that there may be reasons for that. However, he has not explained to us, so far as I can recall, why the Government think it necessary within so short a time to make this change so that he Lord Chief Justice's consent, on top of his other input, no longer has to be obtained.
Lord Filkin: For two reasons. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, being knowledgeable about Northern Ireland affairs, will have read the Hillsborough agreement as well as I have. More fundamentally, in many situations when a tribunal is set up, the Lord Chief Justice will already have been part of the process. So that situation is a circular one. When he is not part of the process, it will have been chaired by a member of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. In our view, one could hardly have a stronger test than that. And the final reason is that it brings us into line with the Criminal Justice Review report and if we think there is no strong reason not to do so, we do think that there is merit in doing so.
Lord Kingsland: Until 24 July 2002, when the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 came into force, all High Court judges in Northern Ireland were protected from dismissal by a requirement that it could only take place on an Address of both Houses of the United Kingdom Parliament. This procedure was replaced in the 2002 Bill by an equivalent double lock procedure. For a dismissal to take place, first the tribunal, with a majority of judges, was required to recommend dismissal. The second part of the lock was that the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland also had to give his or her approval.
Thus the previous situation was the double lock of both Houses of Parliament. The new situation since July 2002 is the double lock of the tribunal and the Lord Chief Justice. The Government were entirely satisfied with that situation in the middle of 2002. They fought for it, they argued for it, they rationalised it. Now, less than two years later, the Government have decided to remove one of those two locks.

739
I have listened to what the Minister said with interest and a degree of sympathy. However, I am forced to conclude that a reasonable person, observing what the Government are proposing and listening to what the Government have said in this debate, would conclude that the reason for the removal of the second part of the lock is wholly political. There seems absolutely no legal rationality whatsoever for doing what the Government have done. If that conclusion is right, it is a very serious matter. I shall not ask your Lordships' House to vote on this matter today but shall certainly return to it at Report. I withdraw my objection to Clause 5 standing part of the Bill.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest to the Committee that we complete the Committee stage of this Bill next Monday.
Moved, That the House do now resume. (Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
Lord Hylton: Perhaps I may ask the Government why they thought it necessary to continue this Committee stage on Monday. Why not finish it off today and be done with it?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: That is generally accepted to be a matter for the usual channels. The allocation of time is discussed in detail. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and other noble Lords who take part in debates on Northern Ireland will recognise that there is a degree of unpredictability about the length of time different parts of the legislation may take. As a courtesy to noble Lords, we discussed during the lunch break whether your Lordships would be prepared to go further on this Bill today knowing that we had agreed a break point. It would be discourteous to Members, not only those here now who are not prepared to continue further, but more importantly to those who wish to take part in the remaining stages of this Bill who had been assured that that would not happen today. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. It is very unusual to stand at this Dispatch Box and apologise to the House for us rising early.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past three o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Energy Bill [H.L.]
(First Day)
Thursday, 15 January 2004.
The Committee met at a quarter past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Gould of Potternewton) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Could of Potternewton): Before I put the Question that the Title be postponed, it may be helpful to remind your Lordships of the procedure for today's Committee stage. Except in one respect, our proceedings will be exactly as in a normal Committee of the Whole House. We shall go through the Bill clause by clause; noble Lords will speak standing; all noble Lords are free to attend and participate; and the proceedings will be recorded in Hansard. The one difference is that the House has agreed that there shall be no Divisions in the Grand Committee. Any issue on which agreement cannot be reached should be considered again at the Report stage when, if necessary, a Division may be called. Unless, therefore, an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should be withdrawn.
I should explain what will happen if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting. The Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and will resume after 10 minutes.
Title postponed.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
"OBJECTIVE OF THE NDA

(1) The objective of the NDA is based upon general environmental principles that must be followed by any person or body in carrying out its functions under this Act.

(2) The general environmental principles are—

(a) the health and safety of people and the environment must be protected from the harmful effects of radiation;

(b) the costs of pollution must be borne by the person or body responsible for causing the pollution; and

(c) that international best practice in radiation protection should be implemented.

(3) The NDA shall also ensure—

(a) the creation of nuclear waste should be avoided or minimised;

(b) nuclear waste is concentrated and contained rather than diluted and dispersed throughout the environment;

(c) the most hazardous wastes are prioritised for conditioning to put them into a passively safe state; and

(d) there is no unnecessary transport of waste."

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 1 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 25 and 27. The amendment would lay down the general environmental conditions in which the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority should operate. It follows the recommendation made by the House of Commons Select Committee on Trade and Industry that there ought to be an over-arching clause to start with.
If ever there were an activity that impinged on the environment, it is the activity proposed for the NDA. It is right that the Bill should begin with the environmental obligations. In their answer to the House of Commons Select Committee, which they have kindly sent to us, the Government indicated that some of the points were mentioned in Clause 9. We agree: they are mentioned in Clause 9, if not as fully as in the new clause. However, we consider that Clause 9 is not the appropriate place, and we have, therefore, suggested an amendment to Clause 9 that would bring the environmental obligations together in the new clause. We regard that as something of great importance, and we would be glad to hear the views of the Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I did not speak at Second Reading, as there seemed to be a great many speakers who knew a lot more about the subject than I. However, I would like to say that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is right to put the question before the Committee.
Reassuring the public about the safety and environmental aspects of nuclear generation, in particular, needs a higher profile in this country from now on. Awareness of progress on decommissioning and waste disposal and the responsibilities of new agencies in respect of effectiveness and mode of working will help the public to come to terms with the longer-term future, which, as became clear at Second Reading, must include a major expansion of nuclear power. We will come to that matter with other amendments.
The amendment is about rebuilding confidence now. Subsection (2) of the new clause proposed in Amendment No. 1 is perhaps reiterating existing law, which makes that part of the amendment unnecessary. Existing environmental law and international agreements would have to be followed. It seems to me that subsections (1) and (3) of the proposed new clause should perhaps appear in the Bill. I do not know what the Government will say about that, but I would say to the noble Lord, with great respect, that that part of the amendment perhaps is not necessary.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I support my noble friend. In a matter of such importance as setting up a new body such as the NDA, it strengthens the Bill to have an objective clause at the beginning—before even the constitution of the body is discussed—so that it is clear to everyone exactly what the objective is. The phrases in the amendment tabled by my noble friend

GC 137
and me about the "polluter pays" principle and to the effect that international best practice should be followed strike me as particularly important.
Baroness O'Cathain: Just for clarification, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, a question. Subsection (2)(b) of the new clause proposed in Amendment No. 1 states:
"(b) the costs of pollution must be borne by the person or body responsible for causing the pollution".
That is just the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, has just spoken about. More than anything else, the NDA is to deal with all the legacy waste, and that is what we are talking about. There are still problems with Ministry of Defence nuclear waste; does the MoD have to pay for it? Will people be able to put their finger on who actually caused the waste? I believe that we are talking about legacies going back some 40 years. Is that right? We might not be able to indicate who they are.
Lord Gray of Contin: I support the amendment. It is very important that the NDA starts with the blessing of everyone connected with the energy industry and, in particular, the general public. For those reasons, it is essential that any doubts or reservations are satisfactorily answered.
Decommissioning is not a new venture. We should not be afraid to defend the record of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and others. We should learn from the experience gained from its activities. It has been successful. Windscale, Harwell, Winfrith and Dounreay have all carried out decommissioning contracts. Those activities have not been without their problems, but it is to be hoped that the industry has learnt from them.
I make no apology for referring to these matters at this stage because they tie up with the proposed amendment. There must be a plan. Something from which the industry has suffered in the past has been an unnecessarily secretive attitude. Anything that we can do in the legislation being put through Parliament to make the industry more aware of that and to make it act in a more open fashion is obviously an advantage.
Public perception of the nuclear industry is that it produces vast quantities of highly radioactive waste material, which is dangerous and a threat to the environment. The reality is that the industry provides a very small quantity of highly radioactive waste and larger, but still modest, quantities of intermediate and low-level waste. Compared with other industries producing toxic waste, the nuclear industry is not exceptional in technical requirements for managing it. However, it is of paramount importance that the industry—particularly the new NDA —is seen to be open and honest in all that it does.
We must learn from the past. Twenty-five years ago, the nuclear industry enjoyed widespread support throughout the country. But, on a number of occasions, it was found to be less than frank and forthcoming with its own supporters, let alone the general public. It paid dearly for that. Nevertheless that confidence can be regained, but the industry must
GC 138
earn that confidence. I suggest that we should in this legislation spell out everything as clearly as possible. For that reason, I support the new clause.
Clause 1 made a start, but in that clause there are a number of references to Scotland, to which we shall have to return later. But I give advance warning to the Minister that we shall want answers to the relationship between, for example, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the First Minister and Scottish Ministers. Who will be the captain of the team? Where does the buck stop?
Reading through the Bill, I find that the relationship between those various Ministers is not clearly defined. It is no use saying that this will be a joint effort or that will be a joint effort. At the end of the day, someone is responsible and someone has got to take responsibility. We shall want it spelt out more clearly who that person is.
Finally, concern has been expressed by some companies who see the possibility of the NDA becoming a competitor with them. Powergen, for example, is a little concerned to ensure that the Government's support for the restructuring of British Energy does not damage BE's competitors. If the NDA is to become a public sector operator of a nuclear power plant, for example, that must be very carefully considered.
I raise those points in general because the new clause is in general terms. I wish to register my support for it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): We are at the beginning of the Bill and, as the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, said, we need clarity. The amendment raises a number of issues as to what should or should not be in the legislation. In effect, while we all recognise the environmental requirements of the NDA, the new clause more or less amounts to a mission statement laying down the objectives of the NDA and covers the "polluter pays" principle.
It is not appropriate to cover a mission statement in legislation. It will properly be for the NDA itself, once established, to determine how it will frame its objectives in line with legislation. It is also normal practice for public bodies. We are discussing one part of a range of public documents that the NDA will issue on how it intends to discharge its responsibilities. They will include, for example, the NDA strategy, the annual plan. the memoranda of understanding with the regulators and its management statement. Together, they will govern the NDA's relationship with others—for example, with the regulators, with stakeholders and with government, whether at Westminster or Edinburgh.
A clause of this kind would be unusual. I can assure the Committee that issues of safety, security and environmental protection will be central to the NDA's activities. That is encapsulated in Clause 9(1), as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, indicated.
Equally if not more importantly, everything that is done by the NDA must comply with all regulatory and other statutory requirements which are unaffected by

GC 139
the Bill. In particular, the environment agencies and the Health and Safety Executive have regulatory responsibilities and there could be some confusion if we imposed them in this rather general way on the NDA. In other words, we could be guilty of a lack of clarity if we imposed such responsibilities here rather than gaining in clarity and transparency as the noble Lord, Lord Gray, suggests we should. It is a more practical and effective way of ensuring appropriate action than a statement in the Bill of the general principles suggested in the amendment in relation to safety and environmental outcomes.
On the "polluter pays" principle in the suggested new subsection (2)(b) and the adoption of international best practice in subsection (2)(c), we have the same reservations. On the first, of course, the Government are committed to the "polluter pays" principle. However, in this sector we must recognise that, as a matter of public safety, the Government have often in the past stepped in—and we may need to do so in future— in extremis to ensure nuclear clean-up and, where necessary, meet the associated costs. That is already in practice the case with British Nuclear Fuels, for whose sites the NDA will take financial responsibility, and it could be required in other cases—for example, British Energy—in future. At least in initial circumstances, the NDA or the Government might, therefore, have to meet those costs rather than the prime polluter.
That said, Clause 5(3) and Clause 10(3) provide that the NDA can require private sector operators to meet the costs where it is involved in arranging the discharge of its responsibilities. Wherever possible, the Government and the NDA will seek to ensure that the private sector operator meets the cost of the clean-up, but that will not be appropriate in all circumstances. Indeed, there is an additional complication with MoD sites, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller.
Proposed new subsection (2)(c) in the amendment on international best practice adds nothing to the way in which the Bill already envisages that the NDA will operate. It is already under a duty to ensure that persons with control of designated installations, facilities and sites adopt good practice. The NDA will not be able to discharge its functions, including research and providing advice to the Secretary of State, without itself being at the cutting edge of nuclear clean-up. As the public body with responsibility for clean-up, it will need to meet all the international obligations. Government policy is that the UK, in that area as in others, should be at the forefront of international best practice.
Proposed subsection (3) of Amendment No. 1, on the handling of radioactive waste, would constrain by statute what the NDA could do in dealing with radioactive material. The NDA is being set up to provide strategic direction, and to be the expert body on nuclear clean-up. We would expect it to be a major contributor to the development of government policy on such matters. Subsection (3) seems to constrain the NDA at the outset, which would be undesirable, not least in view of the very long-term nature of the NDA's task.
GC 140
I am therefore not in favour of accepting the very general clause in the amendment. As I said, it restates the obvious in some ways and could lead to a lack of clarity on the duties of the NDA and the regulators under whose monitoring it will operate. I therefore hope that members of the Committee will not pursue it.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I have listened very carefully to what the Minister said, and have studied the report of the Select Committee in another place. I reiterate the thanks of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for our having been able to see the Government's response before it has been published in another place. That is rather exceptional, and I thank the official who organised that.
Having thought about the matter very carefully, I am inclined to come down in favour of the Minister's argument. There are elements in the proposed new clause that would constrain the NDA in what will be a very long-term exercise. It would be perfectly proper for the provisions to go into a mission statement, as the Minister said, which could be changed to meet changing circumstances. However, having studied the amendment and heard the arguments both in its favour and against it, I cannot support it.
What particularly worried me was the use of "avoided" in subsection (3) of the amendment. The NDA will he operating nuclear power stations for a good long while. Inevitably, they will produce more waste, albeit in small quantities. It seems very contradictory to start with the proposition that the NDA is to be constrained so far as possible to avoid any waste, while later in the Bill it is given the power to continue to operate Magnox stations in particular and no doubt other facilities. I have enormous respect for the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who has huge experience in this field, but I cannot help feeling that the amendment is an attempt to give a wholly predominant place to environmental issues —important though they are—in the decommissioning process, which must be thoroughly cost-effective. With apologies to my noble friends, who indicated that they may be tempted to support such an amendment, I cannot support it.
Baroness Byford: I apologise to the Commit tee that I was a few minutes late in arriving. Further to the comments of my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Boding, I. too, have reservations about the wording of the amendment. That does not mean that I do not follow its aim—together we have debated many Bills on which we have tried to get greater clarification.
Will the Minister respond to recommendation two of the Trade and Industry Select Committee's report, which states:
"We consider that a clear and unambiguous statement of the overarching principles within which the NDA will work would he a useful addition to the draft Bill. Such a statement would have most force if it were given in the main body of the Bill."?
Does he have anything further to say on that?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Before the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, speaks again, and the Minister replies, it might be appropriate to say that, although I have listened very carefully to what my noble friends have said, the Front Bench supports what the Minister said.
Lord Whitty: The Select Committee in another place argued strongly for a mission statement. Both the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and I have seen the inappropriateness of a mission statement as such in the Bill. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, comes too close to a mission statement for us to be able to accept it. I am not saying that we would not accept anything in that regard, but, by and large, the Bill already indicates clearly what the NDA should do. The amendment tends to go into wide generalities and to confuse the role of the NDA with that of the regulator.
Lord Ezra: I thank all members of the Committee who have participated in what is obviously a preliminary discussion before we get into the nitty-gritty of the Bill. Some have supported the amendment and others, including the Minister, have expressed reservations.
I will deal particularly with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, on the "polluter pays" principle. That principle is enshrined, and we are committed to it. Obviously, from time to time, there must be exceptions, but most previous nuclear waste problems have arisen from operations in public ownership, where the polluter is the public body. The case of British Energy is the one big exception, and there has been legislation to deal with it. The principle must apply but, like all major principles, circumstances sometimes mean that we must depart from it.
On the general argument about whether we should have such a clause at the start of the Bill, I still feel that we should. If the NDA is going to issue a mission statement, so be it—it would be excellent, and all companies should do that. In view of the environmentally sensitive nature of its operations, we should have a say right at the start to remind the NDA of its environmental obligations.
A number of important points were made on the detail of the amendment. I would be happy to think again about it and consider whether, in some amended form, it can he brought forward once more at a later stage. However, I feel that any points that are made regarding the environment should be at the start of the Bill and not tucked away in Clause 9, as is done at the moment.
Having said all that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Constitution of NDA]:
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 34. leave out from "Where" to end of line 39 and insert "there are executive members in addition to the chief executive, the total number of executive members shall not be greater than three"
The noble Lord said: I added my name at the last moment to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, which are taken together, and I will start by offering the apologies of my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith, who had hoped to be here to speak to the amendments himself. Sadly, he is not well, and he asked me to move these in his place.
They can be dealt with quite briefly. The subsections in Clause 2 which refer to the setting up and the constitution of the NDA are, for the most part, perfectly reasonable and straightforward, until we come to the question of the relationship between the executive directors and the non-executive directors. I shall have occasion during the debates on the Bill to refer back to the House of Lords Select Committee, five years ago, on which I had the honour to serve, and from which an astonishing amount has been carried forward, even though it seems to have taken an incorrigibly long time.
One of the things that we recognised then, in recommending that there should be a commission to take this forward, was that the commission should have among its directors a wide range of skills and experience to serve. Although we did not attempt to make any suggestions as between executive and non-executive directors, it was implicit in our recommendations that the majority of the directors of the commission—which had a different name from this but was the same sort of animal—would have been non-executive directors. That was on the grounds that that is what such an operation calls for.
I entirely agree that it would be inappropriate that we should try to constrain the NDA according to "Higgs principles". That would not be right. At the same time, I also agree that there should be a majority of non-executive directors. However, the Bill goes further and attempts first of all to impose surprising limits on the constitution of the board.
The point of Amendment No. 2 is that the Bill gives the Government a wholly unnecessary power to make various changes. If ever there was a question of wanting to set up something that would have statutory authority from the beginning, it should be in the Bill. Subsection (7) says that the Secretary of State may make a direction to the NDA, and that,
"the number of the executive members in addition to the chief executive —

(a) is not less than the minimum set by the direction; and

(b) does not exclude the maximum so set;

and the direction must not set a maximum of more than three".
That is astonishingly convoluted. In place of that, the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith would simply remove everything after "Where" and insert:
"there are executive members in addition to the chief executive, the total number of executive members shall not be greater than three".
What could be clearer than that? That fulfils exactly the intention of the provision. In the interests of simplicity, I strongly recommend that the words in the amendment should replace subsection (7).
The Committee may have a little difficulty finding Schedule 1; it is on page 130. It provides for quorums and states what will constitute a majority. It will require there to be a majority of the non-executive directors, which I support, but, again, it is a convoluted provision. The whole thing could be much simpler if, after "unless", we inserted the words:
"it is taken by a simple majority of the membership".
Other requirements could then make it clear that it must be a majority of the non-executive members as well.
Let me say at once that I support that provision. Having chaired a company and sat on a board with a large number of executive directors. I am well aware of the danger of the executives, who, after all, spend their entire career and whole life doing such work, having an influence that it is difficult for non-executive directors to override. So I do not quarrel with the intention; I merely suggest that it could be more simply expressed and that the wording of Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 would achieve that.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith, who has experience in these matters, would have made much the same speech. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: The words in the schedule are somewhat complicated, and I thank my noble friend for trying to make it simple, using the words tabled by my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith who, regrettably, is in hospital today and cannot be with us.
Obviously, we do not vote in Grand Committee —we know the rules—and it is always difficult at the beginning of the Bill for a Minister to accept what we say, but it would be so easy for him to accept the amendment, which is simple and only makes this convoluted provision somewhat easier to understand. I hope that he will. I recall from the days when I was involved in marketing that I was taught this silly phrase, which we used to have to write on the board: KISS, which stands for "Keep it simple, stupid". The amendment is one of the easiest ways for us to improve the Bill in a simple way that in no way affects its meaning.
Lord Ezra: I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, for the reasons stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. This paragraph is a convoluted way of saying, "Whatever path you take, you end up with three". We ought to stipulate three from the outset and be done with it. There is enough that is complicated in the Bill without complicating the simple issue of whether there are one, two or three executive members.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: It is interesting that it is proposed that, before appointing the chairman and non-executive members, the Secretary of State—presumably, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—must consult Scottish Ministers. He must also do so before proposing the appointment of the
GC 144
chief executive. But there is no requirement, so far as I can see, for anyone to consult Scottish Ministers on the appointment of executive members. Why is that?
That matters because the Government have clearly recognised the crucial importance for Scotland of the body and of its ability to work closely with Scottish local authorities and the Scottish Parliament, remembering that planning and environment are devolved matters. The Government have taken account of that; they have taken much account of Scottish matters in the Bill. I commend them for that. The working between the two Parliaments is evolving well. The Bill refers to Scottish Ministers—which probably means the Minister responsible for the environment, although it may be the First Minister. The Scottish Executive must be happy that there is a balance which includes people who understand the circumstances of Scotland. That will give the people of Scotland confidence that the body, when operating in a non-devolved matter, understands the Scottish situation. It would be interesting if the Minister could give a reason for that. There may be a very good one. I do not know.
Baroness O'Cathain: I support the amendments, particularly the first one. As has been pointed out, the clause uses crazy language and is very convoluted. The second amendment is particularly important.
I have studied the text on page 130. It could give rise to a situation where several of the non-executive members of the NDA were abroad, ill, involved in traffic jams and so on and were not at a meeting. That would mean that the majority at the meeting could well turn out to be executive members. That would support the point made by my noble friend Lord Jenkin that the executive members would have to be calmed down a bit, although that is probably not the right word.
The problem is that sometimes there are strains between the non-executive directors and executive directors, and if there is a majority of non-executive directors, it should obviously be the non-executive directors who sway the decision. If it happened that for some reason two or three were missing, it could well be the other way round. So I commend Amendment No. 3.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful for the way in which the amendments have been moved. I express our wishes that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will soon be back with us to help in our deliberations on the Bill.
In producing what has been referred to as a convoluted section of the clause, the Government are concerned that the NDA should be constituted in a way that is fit for purpose throughout its life, which is expected to be many decades. So there is a case for flexibility, given the perspective that it could last for a long time.
On the issue of membership, the Committee will recognise that the key principle we wish to establish—which is set out in Clause 2(8)—is that the non-executives will at all times be in the majority. That will enable the non-executive members effectively to challenge the executive management team and ensure that the NDA becomes a champion of openness and transparency.

GC 145
Within that framework, we consider that flexibility on the number of executive members is sensible. While we may all agree that three executive members ought to be the norm, in the early years the NDA will face a substantial challenge in establishing itself, and the systems and processes need to be in place for it to carry out its functions effectively. Our view is that, in those circumstances, there could be a case for four executive members to deal with the full range of responsibilities of the NDA at board level in the early period.
Over the longer term, the need for a large executive presence on the board may indeed be expected to decline. But while we want to leave individual appointments of executive members to the non-executives as a matter of the good use of public funds, it is entirely proper that the Secretary of State should retain an ability to determine the overall size of the board within the limits set out in subsection (1).
I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. with regard to consultation that the non-executives will make these decisions on the board, not the Secretary of State. We have got proper consultation with Scottish Ministers when the Secretary of State is setting up the board, but the executive will be chosen by the non-executive members. It would not therefore be appropriate to write into the Bill a necessity for consultation with Scottish Ministers because the UK Minister will not at that point be directly involved in the choice of executive members.
As to the question of the NDA's procedures, we have limited the statutory requirements to the minimum with the focus on ensuring that non-executives are able to control the strategic direction of the NDA, which I believe is the burden of the remarks of all noble Lords who spoke on the point. Provisions with regard to the NDA's rules of procedure are to be found in Schedule 1, a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, referred.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: May I make one thing absolutely clear at the outset of the Committee? I have no "s" on the end of my name.
Lord Davies of Oldham: That was a sibilant slip, I am afraid, after all the years we have known each other. I do have an "s" on the end of my name and therefore such a slip is not possible in that respect. I apologise to the noble Lord. It certainly will not happen again.
Subject to the requirement that such decisions must be taken when a majority of those present are non-executives, we wish the NDA to have the freedom to regulate its own proceedings. The principle is in place and the board must be expected to regulate its own proceedings. For example, there may be decisions on which the NDA decides that more than a simple majority would be appropriate because of the nature of the decision and the desire to demonstrate the extent to which there is support for such a decision on the board.
GC 146
As we all recognise, the NDA will last for very many years. We do not wish to impose unnecessary statutory constraints at the outset which might subsequently limit its ability to adapt to circumstances in the future. I recognise that noble Lords opposite have sought to clarify what is perhaps a little more convoluted in the measure than their amendments would indicate, but they will recognise that the terms of the Bill offer a degree of flexibility that we think appropriate for a body that is to last for a long time.
Lord Ezra: Can the noble Lord clarify a point he made a little earlier? He pressed the case for flexibility and said that there may be occasions when it might be desirable to have up to four executive directors. However, my reading of Clause 2(7) is that the Secretary of State will be required to issue a direction with a maximum set at no more than three executives. How does "four" come into it?
Lord Davies of Oldham: Clause 2(7) refers to the non-executive directors, but not to the chief executive, who would be the fourth member.
Lord Ezra: I thought that we were talking about the executive directors.
Lord Davies of Oldham: We are talking about the group representing the management and executive of the NDA, which could comprise four members in total.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said. Who could he more appropriate than a Deputy Chief Whip to talk about the management of a body such as this? He is good at managing all kinds of groups.
It would help if the Minister could give me some idea of how many directors will be appointed in the first instance. I recognise that he has made a case for flexibility, and there may be something in that, but Ministers must have some idea of the size of the initial hoard. I shall carrying on speaking while they consult on this. I do not want to revert to my earlier arguments because they will not be able to spend any money until the Bill has received its Second Reading in another place. However, I am sure that a great deal of thought is being put into identifying people. I certainly hope that that is the case because, if this body is to be up and running by April of next year, they will have to move fast.
Before we leave this matter, it would be helpful if we could be given an idea of the number of people Ministers are considering for appointment.
Lord Davies of Oldham: We estimate that the total size of the body in the first instance will be between nine and 11 people. That will guarantee that the non-executives are in the majority. However, it will be some months before we shall consider moving towards a full complement. Further, it should be recognised that, over the many decades during which the body will establish its procedures and win the confidence of the wider public and all others concerned with its operations, while it might remain the same size, it may be that the number of executives reduces to the

GC 147
minimum. However. the reason why we have asked for flexibility here is that it may be necessary, during the early stages, to have a slightly greater representation.
4 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Boding: I find that figure surprisingly low. The management will need a range of experience and expertise to play their part. It would not in the least distress me if it turned out that the number was three or four more than that. I know that it is fashionable to cut Cabinets and shadow Cabinets down to size, but we are dealing here with an operational body that will take some extremely important decisions. The whole thrust of the Bill is that the NDA itself will be in charge of its proceedings, subject to directives issued, from time to time, by the Minister. It would seem desirable that there should be enough people on it to ensure a broad range of experience.
If the Ministers present are thinking of the numbers that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, suggested, I would have to agree that there must be some flexibility. If they find, as I suspect that they might, that, as the work of the authority proceeds, they would like to have more, they should have the power to do that. That is an argument of some force.
I am less convinced on the question of a majority. We cannot vote on it now, but I dislike the idea of a board deciding, off its own bat, that, for a particular kind of decision, it will rig the ballot, as it were, and say that a majority will not he enough. It would be an odd thing for a company to do, and I am not sure that it would not lay itself open to proceedings in a court if it did, unless there were a clear power in the articles of association to do so. I would have thought that a majority—including, of course, a majority of the non-executive directors, which is what the schedule provides for—would he sufficient. However, I shall consider carefully what the Minister said and decide whether we should come back to the matter. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority]:
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Designated responsibilities]:
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 9. after "of' insert "redundant radioactive material and waste at"
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 4 and the two grouped with it would bring more clarity to the expression "cleaning-up", which we find in subsection (1)(c). It is defined in Clause 34, which deals with the general interpretation of Chapter 1 of Part 1. Clause 34 says:
" 'cleaning-up' and 'decommissioning', in relation to a site or installation, includes—
(a) the treatment, storage, transportation and disposal of hazardous material".
That definition of cleaning-up is not satisfactory. Cleaning up the site means removing the contaminant or radioactive material. It does not necessarily mean, at that stage, the treatment, storage, transportation or disposal of the hazardous material. Cleaning up a site without reference to that might simply mean removing the litter that blows around.
Given the importance of what we are talking about in terms of clean-up of the site, simply to refer to everything that happens after the waste is removed as constituting clean-up is unsatisfactory. I suggest, subject to an explanation from the Minister of his understanding of clean-up, that we would want a much firmer definition. I have not suggested one now, because I am interested to hear his definition. However, it should cover the removal from the site of the hazardous waste. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am minded to support the noble Baroness in the amendment. However, I wonder whether she has quite recognised the extent of its effect. One issue that has exercised many minds in the area—again I come hack to our Select Committee five years ago—was that of fissile material that was no longer required and should be declared as waste. There has been a lot of literature about that. I shall start with the Select Committee report, my quotation starting from paragraph 7.47 and coming under the conclusions on reprocessing, plutonium and Mox—mixed oxide—fuels. We said:
"Our concern is with the waste management implications of reprocessing".
Our next paragraph stated:
"The one current use for separated civil plutonium is in the fabrication of MOX fuel. In the much longer term it may be possible to use plutonium in fast breeder reactors. In the United Kingdom our stocks of separated plutonium far exceed the amounts we could use as MOX in our own reactors or that we might wish to keep as a strategic resource for a future fast reactor programme. We have no reactors which can use MOX at present".
I am not sure whether that is still true, but it was then. We continued:
"The amount required as the initial charge in the core of a 1 GW(e) fast reactor is about 4 tonnes; our stocks of civil plutonium could reach over 100 tonnes by 2010".
The figure of 100 tonnes has been very widely cited.
The recommendation that we made on that was that the authorities should determine the strategic need for plutonium, and that the balance should then be regarded as waste. When I read the amendment and looked at its implications, it seemed that we should certainly include the handling of redundant plutonium.
The most recent report that we have had on the matter came from RWMAC, the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee, which reported last March. At paragraph 4.12, it made its most important recommendation, which was at the heart of its press release at the time. It read:
"One important aspect of radioactive waste management, on which RWMAC has already commented, is that policy should he robust to changes in radioactive materials declared as wastes. There are suggestions in Managing Radioactive Waste Safely "—

GC 149
a government paper—
"that some quantities of materials currently not classified as waste may, in the future, become waste".
That is exactly what the Select Committee of this House had recognised would happen.
RWMAC continued:
"The evolution of the RWI"—
the radioactive waste inventory—
"into a Radioactive Materials Inventory (RMI) would provide a means of identifying all existing and potential liabilities that have significant management costs".
One does not need to be an expert in nuclear science to recognise that, if we are to have some tens of tonnes of plutonium declared as waste, the significance of that in dealing with high-level waste is considerable.
The noble Baroness, perhaps inadvertently, seems to have touched on a very important issue. I would not regard it as in the least improper that the NDA should have the responsibility. We will come later to the question of its responsibility for the long-term disposing of waste, but it is right that it should regard what one might call redundant fuel as part of the problem to which it ought to address itself.
I cannot forbear from ending with a short story. There is widespread apprehension—it has been frequently cited by the green movement—that plutonium is the most toxic substance known to man. I was due to speak in a debate at the Cambridge Union—it was long after I ceased to be a student; I was asked to go back as a visiting speaker—to discuss the nuclear industry. I got myself briefed by the UKAEA, and I said, "There is sure to be the question of plutonium". The representative of the UKAEA said, "You are probably right", and handed me a small package, which I opened. There was a small plastic cylinder in it. He told me what it was and said that I should take it with me, and that it would be a good defence.
Sure enough, some young man got up and said that plutonium was the most dangerous substance known to man. I simply turned to him, said, "Catch", and threw the cylinder across to him. He caught it and I said, "That is a heart pacemaker powered by plutonium oxide. May I have it back please?".
The substances are well known, and scientists who handle them well understand them, but I wish that the Government could tell us whether they are to be within the remit of the NDA. I hope that they are; it seems to me that it would have to deal with them. I am not sure whether the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, quite realised what she was getting us into.
Lord Jopling: I want to add to my noble friend's story. Coming from a constituency in another place that was very close to Sellafield in the Lake District, I remember a public inquiry where, at the end, the inspector said that it was perfectly safe to sit on plutonium, providing that one had a stout pair of jeans.
Lord Whitty: I am not sure that that entirely conforms to best health and safety practice. Throwing
GC 150
a lump of plutonium across the Room might not either; I trust that we shall not see any of that behaviour in Committee.
There is a distinction between the amendment and what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, is pointing out. On both counts, the Bill as it stands gives the NDA the responsibility for being able to implement clean-up. Far from making that more effective, the amendments would make it more restricted.
As the definition in Clause 34(1) makes clear, the NDA is required to ensure that all hazardous material and other matter and substances that need to be dealt with or removed to make the site or installation suitable to be used for other purposes is cleaned up. In other words, the NDA is not restricted to nuclear or radioactive waste. Clearly there is a long-running saga about the definition of spent plutonium. Were it to be the policy of the NDA to deal with spent fuel as well as waste, that would fall under the designation as well. Those issues of definition fall into the radioactive waste review, which is currently being considered by Defra. But the first of the two amendments to the clause would restrict clean-up to radioactive material and waste; it would exclude, for example, hazardous chemical material, which the NDA is responsible for removing. In this part of the Bill "clean-up" means clean-up, not simply clean-up of radioactive waste. It would be restrictive to adopt Amendment No. 19 and, in most respects, Amendment No. 20. That is the opposite of what the noble Baroness seeks, but it would be the effect of these amendments.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short exchange, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. He is quite right; I had not thought about the issue of spent plutonium when tabling the amendment, although I am aware that it is a thorny issue.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: If I may interrupt the noble Baroness, it is not spent. It could be used, but there is more of it than we would ever need.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I bow to the noble Lord's much greater expertise in this subject. But it is effectively spent at the moment—that is my understanding of the definition. An amendment has not been tabled to explore this issue, so I am glad that it could be discussed in debating my amendment.
I thank the Minister for his explanation, but I am still not entirely happy that the definition of "cleaning-up" in Clause 34 is entirely satisfactory. It hinges on whether the site is made,
"suitable to be used for other purposes".
One could do half a job and leave the site suitable for a few purposes, such as storing waste indefinitely, or one might seek to make it suitable to be used for any other purposes, in which case it would have to be entirely decontaminated. The definition is very loose. I look forward to discussing the issue with other noble Lords and seeking their opinions. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, line 15, at end insert—
"through the employment whenever reasonably possible of appropriately qualified and experienced persons having regard to the safety, health and environmental expertise of those persons"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 6, which relates to Clause 3(1), I shall speak also to Amendment No. 28, which relates to Clause 9(2). Both amendments deal with the same subject—safety and environmental performance. Those two factors must be the NDA's top and overriding priority.
Strangely, however, the Bill does not require the NDA to have due regard to the importance of a strong safety culture among companies competing for contracts or individuals seeking senior managerial positions—a safety culture no less strong than that which currently exists at BNFL.
There is already a highly developed safety culture in the nuclear industry. Over the past 20 to 30 years, discharges from BNFL's Sellafield plant have been reduced to about one-thousandth of their 1970s peak. As my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding pointed out in his speech at Second Reading, BNFL has never really been credited for that achievement in the media and elsewhere. We must eliminate concerns, real or imagined, that the introduction of competition to the United Kingdom decommissioning and clean-up market will compromise the current excellent safety culture that is already there.
Sometimes the Government respond to the amendments that I table—the noble Lord, Lord Whiny, has never done so because I have never been on the opposite side of the Dispatch Box from him—with the argument that they are "too prescriptive". On the topic of nuclear safety and environmental factors affecting the nuclear industry, it is impossible to be too prescriptive.
The amendments underline the importance that should be given to the safety, health and environmental record of contractor companies and individuals who will be potential senior managers competing for work under and on behalf of the NDA.
I shall now speak to Amendment No. 28. The NDA will not carry out decommissioning work itself. It will farm out the work to what are called and management and operation contractors. Clause 9(2)(b) requires the NDA to,
"promote effective competition for contracts to provide it with the services it must secure in order to discharge its responsibilities".
Subsection (2)(d) goes on to command the NDA to,
"secure value for money".
Those two directives are not necessarily compatible with safety, health or environmental considerations. The temptation could be to go for the cheapest offer. It might be argued by the NDA, especially a cash-strapped NDA, that, on the face of it, that would answer the criterion relating to competition, on the one hand, and that relating to value for money, on the other.
My late grandmother, who always had extraordinarily clever sayings, used to say that to buy cheap was to buy dear. Cheapness is not a criterion that we want to see applied to nuclear decommissioning. We want skill, expertise and a proven track record, especially as it is conceivable that bids for contracts may come from overseas from companies of which we know little. Even in the case of home-grown companies, if I may describe them that way, we need only look at the abysmal safety record of the railways, where contracts have been placed in the hands of companies that have proved not to be up to the mark. Defective rail maintenance can cost several lives; that is bad enough. Poorly done nuclear clean-up can cost lives for generations, cause terrible illnesses and pollute tracts of the country for generations to come.
I am not standing here to promote the interests of BNFL, but it is right, in this case, to point out the world-beating reputation of that company. I would be failing if I did not say that. We are talking about companies that can compete, and we want to make sure that they have the same standards.
BNFL is to be subjected to outside competition, and it tells me that it welcomes that. I guess that it would say that, anyway. It is important that the competition is required to provide no less a standard than we have at present. That applies not only to the companies competing for the work but also to the individuals who carry out the management of the work at senior levels. Skill, expertise and experience are the essential ingredients of effective competition, as is value for money, which the amendment requires to be fully taken into account, when the NDA grants contracts. It is for that reason that the amendment is essential. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I shall not add much to what my noble friend said. She made the case strongly. I find it surprising that nowhere in the Bill is there a stated recognition that, in the process of what is rather inelegantly called "contractualisation", the qualities of the contracting companies with regard to safety and environmental protection should be regarded as an immensely important criterion for selection.
As my noble friend said, there is clear evidence in the industry that mishandling can have condign effects. Mercifully, there have been astonishingly few such results because of the safety culture that the industry not only in this country but elsewhere, with the possible exception of Chernobyl, has always demonstrated. I remember the row that followed the Three Mile Island incident in America. Senator Teddy Kennedy campaigned against the industry and there was a rash of bumper stickers in New York that pointed out that more lives were lost at Chappaquiddick than at Three Mile Island, which happens to be true.
One consequence follows from this debate on which the Minister may be able to comment. We now have two major organisations that have extensive experience in the field of decommissioning: not only BNFL, which has been mentioned, but the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, which was mentioned at Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart. I would be failing in my

GC 153
duty if I did not draw to Ministers' attention the fact that both companies feel that, whereas neither of them is opposed to the concept of competitive tendering for contracts—although they will receive the initial contracts because they are the only people on the spot—they should be regarded as the suppliers of choice until other competitors have shown that they have not only the same skills and ability to deliver competitively on cost but the same culture in their staff, which has meant that the nuclear industry in this country has had such an astoundingly good safety record. That ought to be written into the Bill, which is what the amendments would do.
I also point out that my story about BNFL's reduction of pollutants from Sellafield and the fact that that was owing to the extreme skills of its operators prompted an outside body to ask whether that should apply to others as well. I hope that if the Minister cannot accept the amendments, he will be able to say that he will give them favourable consideration.
Lord Ezra: I, too, support the amendments so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon. They enter into the spirit of Amendment No. 1, which I moved earlier, which some members of the Committee supported but some did not. The whole point of the culture of safety, health and environmental expertise in the nuclear industry, which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, rightly stressed, cannot be overemphasised. As so much of the work will be undertaken under contract, it is vital that when awarding contracts, the NDA should have regard to those matters. Obviously, it will, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, that should be written into the Bill.
Baroness Byford: I shall briefly support my noble friend's amendments. I know that in other fields, the countries entering the EU in May are being given time to come up to our standards. Something that concerns us all is that in this field it is crucial that standards are the same wherever in the world a company comes from. We need the formal assurance from the Minister that in this field there will be no levity. I also hope that he will accept my noble friend's amendments, because they are well supported around the Committee and crucial for the Bill. I am anxious, especially for the environment, because there is to be a phase-in period for those countries in some other forms of industry. I should like the Minister to clarify that those easier rules will not apply here.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Further to my noble friend's remarks, have the Government taken into account the impact of European competition and employment law, which will come into play when the new countries enter the European Union? Not long ago, at a nuclear industry conference, I heard a description of what had gone wrong in the old Soviet Union. The Soviet navy was in charge of looking after nuclear waste, somewhere not very far from the sea,
GC 154
and it was leaking into the sea. Of course nobody understood what could happen as a result. There could be tricky incidents if experts from new European Union states—or indeed any country—did not have quite enough experience.
It does not take just the top person in an organisation to make a mistake; mistakes can be made quite low down. During the war I was a laboratory assistant working with nuclear materials, including plutonium. I shall not trouble members of the Committee with stories of what that was like. Not even laboratory assistants were left out of security arrangements; it was extremely important that everybody understood them. It is crucial that the Bill makes certain that account is taken of those matters. Will the Government consider the implications of the new countries joining the European Union and the European law that will apply?
Lord Davies of Oldham: We understand the importance of the points made by several members of the Committee on the crucial issue of the health and safety standards to be employed in such a significant industry. We agree that the NDA must ensure that it has in place the necessary expertise, now and in the future, so that it can decommission successfully, which we recognise is always challenging.
Clause 9(2) recognises that. It places on the NDA a duty to ensure the maintenance and development of a skilled workforce able to undertake clean-up. But that is a means to an end. The NDA's role will be to set the strategic direction for clean-up across the whole United Kingdom; to manage the framework for delivering it; and to ensure that the necessary conditions are in place for it to be carried out successfully. Clause 9(1) specifies the general duties of the NDA when carrying out its functions as:
"having particular regard to each of the following—

(a) relevant Government policy;

(b) the need to safeguard the environment;

(c) the need to protect persons from risks to their health and safety from activities involving the use, treatment, storage, transportation or disposal of hazardous material; and

(d) the need to preserve nuclear security".

The NDA is therefore working within a broad framework that takes on board the enormously important safety issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, and other members of the Committee emphasised. It is not just a matter of employing the right sort of people, although that is an important element. To achieve the step-change in nuclear clean-up that we seek, we must not detract from the NDA's focus on delivering on clean-up.
Amendment No. 6 relates to the decommissioning of NDA facilities and suggests that the NDA could in some way manage that more directly. That is simply not the case. Decommissioning facilities will be operated on behalf of the NDA in the same way as nuclear installations. Employees operating and decommissioning NDA facilities will be employed by site operators, with which the NDA will contract, directly or indirectly, to a site management contractor. The facility category to which we refer is designed to

GC 155
capture installations that are not on a licensed site but that ultimately would need to be decommissioned. There are none of those at present but the Bill is designed to establish the NDA over many decades to come. We cannot be confident that there would be no such installations in future.
I accept entirely the representations about the culture that the NDA must establish. As I emphasised, that is part of the remit under Clause 9(1). It is indeed one of the essential tests for anyone involved in the nuclear clean-up. But it is for the regulators, not the NDA, to decide on a contractor's suitability in that regard. It is a very important decision. I hear what the noble Baroness says about new players coming on stream in due course. She suggested that some might not have a track record that meets our specifications.
Those responsible for certain nuclear power stations in the old Soviet bloc must certainly fall short of the specifications. We had an anecdotal moment earlier; let me give another anecdote. I remember standing on the shores of the Barents Sea in sub-zero temperatures of a magnitude that I never want to experience again. I was already a chilled soul when the person next to me pointed out six passing Soviet submarines—this is many years ago when the Soviet Union posed a Cold War threat—and said, "They are not the problem; they arc the safe ones. It is those that are docked permanently in Murmansk that will cause the future problems". We have subsequently realised the truth of that remark.
Let me say in response to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that of course the Government want to continue to see UKEA and BNFL management improve the efficiency of their organisations and their ability to clean up. We are working with them to help them create a viable contractor capability in preparation for any future site management competitions run by the NDA. We expect them to be in a strong position in any bidding. But the rationale for competition is straightforward: as I am sure all members of the Committee will accept, we are looking for the best organisation for the job. We seek the organisation that can deliver the NDA's clean-up objectives and meet its further objectives of promoting, ensuring the maintenance and development of a skilled workforce and securing value for money.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, we all recognise that shortcuts can be taken if the sole criterion is value for money. That might put health and safety standards at risk. Value for money in this context includes the effective operation of health and safety standards. Contractors will be evaluated by the regulators. This is not contractualisation for the sake of it; it is using competition to drive up performance. Performance is not just about ensuring the least cost. The least cost represents best value, which includes all the concepts to which the noble Baroness drew attention. Best value does not mean competitors diminishing employees' terms and conditions as a means of driving down costs. If BNFL and UKEA can prove their ability to deliver best value, they will be well placed to compete for the management of sites, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said they would almost certainly be.
GC 156
The NDA will want as much comfort as possible that any contractor that it is minded to appoint will be acceptable to the regulators. That is addressed in the memorandum of understanding that will be put in place between the NDA and the regulator, and that has been agreed in generic terms as a draft document. But the regulators will not want to he drawn into detailed consideration of the merits of individual bidders, which might compromise their independence in sanctioning the organisational change that would be necessary on the appointment of a new contractor.
In response to the anxieties that members expressed clearly, we subscribe to the idea that one cannot talk about value for money, effective competition and the exercise of accepting contractors, unless one builds into the concept the necessary role of the NDA and the regulators in ensuring that all the considerations to which the noble Baroness drew attention are part of the concept of value for money. I hope that, on that basis, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I hope that the Minister will not take it the wrong way when I thank everyone who supported me. I took comfort in the support given by the noble Lords, Lord Jenkin and Lord Ezra, who are experts in this field. I hope that the Minister will not be offended, as I do not suggest that he is not an expert, but the two noble Lords who supported me are the stars in this debate. They have gone through all the points very carefully.
The Minister spoke a lot about the general duties in Clause 9(1), but they are the duties of the NDA. My two simple amendments concern the duties of the contractors, which is a separate issue. That is an essential distinction. The Minister said that it was a matter for the regulators. I cannot believe that the regulators are involved in the employment of senior management of the companies given this business to do. If that is so, the whole issue is absolutely ridiculous. I was making the point that if the NDA puts the contract out to tender, requiring all those other conditions, the companies that win the contracts will be dealing with the employment of the senior management who will run the operation. It is not the Minister's fault that he did not understand my point; obviously I was not clear enough.
I re-emphasise that that is what my amendment is about; it is extraordinarily important. Although I shall do as the Minister said and withdraw Amendment No. 6 at this stage, we do not feel that his answer was adequate given the seriousness of the issue. The Minister has not told the Committee what are his objections to our two simple amendments other than that they are not necessary. He prayed in aid matters that are nothing to do with the amendment but which relate to the NDA. We were talking about the contractors. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall Lord Lea of Crondall moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 15, at end insert—
"( ) In addition, the NDA may, under the direction of the Secretary of State, take responsibility for planning and developing nuclear facilities."
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 7 states that,
"the NDA may, under the direction of the Secretary of State, take responsibility for planning and developing nuclear facilities",
That may appear to be well outside the purposes of the Bill, but I shall endeavour to explain why the issues are very pertinent. Some people may say that surely the NDA is there because we are now firmly in the era of closing down the industry. I wish to turn that hypothesis on its head.
On the question of the time-scale, in order to send a signal during the first three or four years of the operational effect of this Bill—which is probably before this or any future government would envisage making firm decisions on new build—it would be useful to acknowledge the possible close identity between many of these sites. They will be within the purview of the NDA, given its responsibilities for decommissioning and waste management, and thus are sites that would certainly be considered if there were to be new nuclear build.
From an engineering point of view, I can imagine that, in planning a site to deal with waste, for example, one would need to be clear about whether to allow for the possibility that new nuclear build might be considered on that site. One does not want to regret making a decision because it is not possible to plan for a possible future use. The famous precept, "Keep the nuclear option open", is brought down to earth in this amendment. In time, we may have to use these sites for new nuclear build. We do not want the NDA to encounter any difficulty when planning for that, and we should avoid it becoming a course that we cannot openly acknowledge.
Members of the Committee have pointed out that, for those of us who see an early need to plan for new nuclear capacity, the NDA would already have earned valuable credibility through its decommissioning role, in the running of safe sites and in managing waste. The noble Lords, Lord Ezra, Lord Jenkin, and others touched on that philosophy.
We are separating the issue of building new nuclear facilities from nuclear decommissioning. I would have made that point in relation to Amendment No. 5, but it was not moved. New nuclear build is not to be one of the principal functions of the NDA; it is a bridge too far. People would say that the Government had changed their whole policy on nuclear power. The Government are not ready to do that in this Bill. Since the question does not arise, the Minister is not in a position to answer it. That is why it cannot be a principal function for the NDA. Nor, politically, is the country ready for it.
Making provision for future nuclear build would be more acceptable if the terminology of this amendment was used. We should refer to "nuclear facilities" rather
GC 158
than "nuclear power stations", the term used in Amendment No. 5. That would offer more flexibility as regards the type of installation.
I close by making a central point. It would not be surprising to find that the NDA needs to protect certain sites which might later be required for new build. It would be short-sighted to waste the opportunity provided by accepting what is proposed in my amendment and precluding the possibility of protecting those sites.
I hope that my noble friend will take the opportunity to think aloud—perhaps I may put it that way—about the connection between the present, the immediate future and the future. I am sure that he will not want to suggest any change of present government policy, but it would be useful to hear what can be said at this stage in an open forum. We could then reflect on what has been said before Report. I beg to move.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: I welcome the opportunity that this amendment gives to probe, a little, the Government's intention regarding site use during the period when decommissioning is going ahead.
In the case that I know best, Dounreay, it is anticipated that it will be a period of many decades. Although the present clear priority is to return it to a greenfield site, it can be envisaged that during the course of the work that is being done, and done with considerable distinction, attributes of the site will become positively attractive to others who wish to learn from the experience, in which Great Britain is giving a lead. That would be a circumstance which would give rise to questions as to whether it would be open, under the clause as drafted, to the decommissioning agency to entertain contracts on the site for the benefit of decommissioning work being done by other countries. Experimental work, which might flow from cognate developments in other countries, might usefully commercially be entertained in these circumstances. It would not necessarily go as far as building a new nuclear reactor, but would simply exploit the technology that is a by-product of the complex technological developments that are in train.
We should avoid tunnel vision in making the provision for this new agency. Failure to recognise the possibilities of the exploitation of the technology would seem to me to be a great mistake. I hope that this amendment will commend itself in spirit to the Government and that they will use this opportunity of exploring further whether such ancillary work could reasonably be undertaken. It would be in the national interest if it could.
Baroness O'Cathain: I support the amendment on the basis that it very clearly shows the big void in this Energy Bill, which deals solely with clean up—well, not solely, but one-third of it is clean-up—of nuclear facilities. It does not nod in the direction of any further new build, nor in the direction of the security and safety of our supplies of electricity generation in the years to come. This was dealt with very thoroughly at Second Reading. Equally thoroughly, the Minister

GC 159
dismissed it and said it was no part of the Bill. The way in which the noble Lords, Lord Lea of Crondall and Lord Maclennan, have brought the issue into the Bill is very interesting. Immediately I can see that the Minister will say that one cannot possibly put a national decommissioning authority into a position of commissioning.
But there is a real case—I shall deal with it in my later amendments —for preserving the techniques, knowledge and know-how that exist in this country at this stage, and that will be increased by the operations of the NDA, and then asking what we will do in the future. That is one way of looking at the issue in strategic terms. I do not know whether the NDA is the right agency or whether an arm of the NDA could be given that specific responsibility. On that basis, if we are not going to get exposure of the issue, I certainly support the amendment.
Lord Jordan: I, too, want to speak in favour of the sense of this amendment and to follow the theme discussed by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. The expertise, experience and facilities that inevitably will reside in the NDA mean that such a body should not by statute be confined, limited or even prohibited from making a contribution if and when the Government's policy on nuclear energy changes.
The Government's present energy policy, as contained in the Bill, relies on their predictions—dare—I say, hopes—concerning what renewables will be produced and their ability to import adequate supplies of gas. The security of this country's energy supply cannot rest solely on that well-meant optimism. Government must be in a position to react quickly to unfavourable developments. The oil crisis of the 1970s is within everyone's experience. Such a crisis could loom on the horizon. Should that happen, this amendment proposes to the Government an option, not a requirement. If the Government believe that the intent is worth taking on, perhaps they will find ways of producing more suitable wording that is to their own liking.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Lord, Lord Jordan, has made a very telling point. I absolutely agree with him. I am sorry that we did not debate Amendment No. 5 because a number of those points could have been made then. Not only does technological understanding and skill need to be preserved, so does public goodwill. The noble Lord who used to represent the area around Dounreay power station said that it did not necessarily mean that there might be a rebuild on that site. He said that with great care. I do not know the public opinion around Dounreay—I am sure that he does—but I get the impression that, in general, there is a lot of goodwill in areas where there have been well-run state nuclear power stations. It is very important that we do not lose that reservoir that now exists.
If only the Government could take a deep breath and have the courage to put such a provision into the Bill, it would begin to build a bridge between where we are now and where we know we must be—probably
GC 160
not far after the next election. We will not have to wait long for a change in point of view, whoever is elected the next time around. It would be very helpful if people could realise that the process going on through this Bill is preparatory to future development—that might even be on the sites of existing power stations. I am not aware of how the public feel, as I do not live near a power station.
5 p.m.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me to clarify the point that I made. I was not seeking to say that I ruled out any idea of there being a nuclear power station built on such a site. At this stage, that might not be reasonably foreseeable. What is reasonably foreseeable is that there will be work done at the site that would be of great commercial value to others and ought to be exploitable under the Bill.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am grateful to the noble Lord. He has given me the confidence to make this point as strongly as I can. I believe that it is the case in other parts of Scotland that a good deal of goodwill exists, as well as a great deal of understanding. We must not lose that by saying that all this is about clean-up and greenfield sites, ending up with a great rural scene of farming and sheep and all the rest of it. Certainly, Scotland needs a great deal more than that. I am hopeful that the Government might—maybe not now—reflect on that and perhaps, after a bit of deep breathing, put something in the Bill like this.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will remember—because it was not very long ago—that at Second Reading apart from one or two speakers, there emerged a clear cross-party consensus—I exclude the Liberal Democrat party—that we would need to go to a nuclear rebuild at some stage. But it is widely recognised outside that it is impractical to imagine, however fast the development of renewable sources comes, that one will be able to develop those, keep the lights on and fulfil our Kyoto obligations. I do not want to repeat what was said at Second Reading.
However, I should like to endorse the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Lea and Lord Jordan, that there is a difference to be drawn between embarking on such a programme, on the one hand—he was not here to move his amendment, but I think that the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Peyton might have been open to that interpretation—and, on the other hand, of actually making certain that what we are in shorthand calling "the nuclear option" remains viable.
I was looking for the origin of the phrase "the nuclear option", and I turned to the White Paper. Of course, it is not there. There are two paragraphs. I think that it would be as well to put that on the record. It is a clear statement of where the Government stand on the issue. Paragraph 4.67 states:
"As chapter 1 makes clear, our priority is to strengthen the contribution that energy efficiency and renewable energy sources make to meeting our carbon commitment. We believe that such ambitious progress is achievable, but uncertainties remain".

GC 161
That is the point made very eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Jordan. It continues:
"While nuclear power is currently an important source of carbon free electricity, the current economics of nuclear power make it an unattractive option for new generating capacity".
Pausing there, I am not too sure that that is right because it leaves out of account the question of what future designs of nuclear stations are likely to be. The paragraph continues:
"there are also important issues for nuclear waste to be resolved".
That is entirely right. I sense that the Government's strategy may well be, although they have been understandably cautious, to move ahead with nuclear waste in order to put themselves into a position to go back to the public and to say, "We solved that. We now need nuclear power stations".
The paragraph goes on to state:
"This white paper does not contain proposals for building new nuclear power stations. However, we do not rule out the possibility that at some point in the future new nuclear build might be necessary if we are to meet our carbon targets".
That is what it says, followed by a short paragraph about what the procedure would be to do that. As I said at Second Reading, it seems astonishing that this is the first major energy Bill following the milestone White Paper—itmay have been criticised; I criticised it myself—but it marked an effort on the part of the Government to set out their energy policy. But in this Bill, the first major piece of legislation, there is nothing that would lend credibility to that paragraph.
We have tabled a number of amendments on this. My noble friend Lady O'Cathain mentioned our amendments that seek to ensure that there will be an adequate number of trained and skilled people available, along with amendments to ensure that that research will continue. Points have been made about existing nuclear sites where all the evidence suggests a much higher level of local public support for nuclear rebuild because those people are familiar with the concept and they look forward to the resultant job opportunities in a continuing nuclear industry. But all this requires a clear view. Are we making the option credible, or are we simply leaving it? With respect, I say to the Ministers opposite that we have the impression that they are just leaving it.
Indeed, evidence given to the Select Committee in another place was at pains to stress that nothing in the Bill deals with new nuclear build. As I said at Second Reading, I find that quite incredible. If this option itself is to become credible, then it needs work.
If we faced an oil crisis of the kind we suffered in 1973, then of course it is not possible to build a new nuclear power station in that kind of time-scale. It probably takes between 15 and 20 years. But the forward outlook of energy generation and supply in this country—looking 15 to 25 years ahead—reflects an enormous fund of outside expert opinion that we cannot do the three things we want—keep the lights on, meet our Kyoto obligations and satisfy energy needs—without nuclear build.
GC 162
We cannot let the Bill leave this House without writing in some provision either on the lines proposed in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lea, or a more specific proposal on training, graduate staff and continuing research, about which my noble friend Lady O'Cathain will speak later. At present, Ministers appear to take some pride in saying that there is nothing, and that is not good enough.
We shall continue to return to this point. Either that paragraph in the White Paper meant something or it did not. I should say that it has been interpreted in a House of Commons Library paper to refer to renewables. It has simply been rewritten with no mention of the nuclear option. It states only that there are no plans to build any more nuclear power stations. That is how the paragraph is being interpreted.
However, that is not the Government's view. They say that we may have to come to that, but that they are not making any provision. As I have said, that is not good enough.
Lord Whitty: I expected a wide-ranging debate on this. Two levels of discussion have emerged as a result of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Lea. One concerns energy strategy as a whole and the viability or otherwise of the energy White Paper, while the second concerns the role of the NDA.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and my noble friends Lord Lea and Lord Jordan, do not entirely agree on the viability of the energy White Paper and the calculations made in it, which depend on delivery on the renewables front and, even more crucially, on energy efficiency measures, and various other aspects of policy outlined in it. However, it is the Government's view that if those measures can be delivered, then the figures will add up without requiring any new nuclear component. That is not to say that we should close any contingency arrangements either because we fail on our other provisions or because of a more cataclysmic event, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Jordan. We would reopen the issue should there be a need for nuclear build. But the strategy and, therefore, the assumptions on which current policy and the legislation are based is that the energy White Paper provisions will form the basis of our energy policy over the coming years.
We are concerned about our electricity supply and therefore we must keep open the possibility that we might need to return to the nuclear option within the terms of the energy White Paper. A decision on nuclear power generation may well need to be made in the future, but that is not the focus of the activities of the NDA. Our White Paper, Managing our Nuclear Legacy, published before the energy White Paper, spells that out. The focus of the NDA—or the LMA, as it was known then—is to concentrate exclusively on decommissioning and clean-up; that is, to deal with the consequences of our nuclear past whether or not we create new nuclear waste at some point down the line by reverting to the nuclear option as part of a future energy policy.
The role of the NDA is to deal with nuclear waste, decommissioning and clean-up. It is not to provide the facility whereby, even if we needed to do so, we could

GC 163
build new nuclear capacity. In those circumstances that would be the responsibility of other organisations, not the NDA.
I agree with the secondary or tertiary point made by my noble friend Lord Lea: some of the sites that the NDA will deal with over rather a long term should not be prevented from providing nuclear facilities at some future time. No doubt that will be one of the considerations resulting from government direction to the NDA which might have to be taken into account. However, the NDA itself will not be a part of the planning, commissioning or delivery activities surrounding future nuclear build.
To an extent I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan. The expertise that the NDA will rightly be expected to acquire in order to deal with decommissioning and handling hazardous material needs to be recognised. It may be that certain sites which it is managing for decommissioning purposes might be appropriate for other facilities directed at enhancing a nuclear capability. Indeed, reference is made in Clause 9 to the need to preserve and enhance the skills relating to the areas for which the NDA is to be responsible. That means that some of the NDA sites which will need to continue to be licensed for some considerable time for use as storage or disposal might also be used for other purposes—including for research purposes undertaken by the NDA or other bodies. A decision would need to be made on that on a case-by-case basis, but nothing in this Bill rules that out.
Clause 10(2)(d), (e) and (f) will allow the NDA to use facilities for research and other purposes to generate funds—or to allow others so to use them. For example, the nuclear science and technology service of BNFL could in its present capacity he located on a site managed under the NDA and use that site for future research. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent that; indeed, under the requirements of Clauses 9 and 10, the NDA would be obliged to help to facilitate it.
So nothing prevents the NDA from facilitating those activities nor, should the Government revert to the nuclear option, from using those sites for nuclear facility purposes—whether power station or other. But the NDA will not be carrying out those activities, as the noble Lord's amendment suggests and as many others have suggested. Under the amendment, the NDA would be a much broader body than envisaged in the Bill—it would be closer to a nuclear power commission, which was envisaged in some contributions to previous energy policy debates, rather than a facility that specialises in the difficult and substantial area of decommissioning and dealing with the storage of nuclear waste.
That distinction needs to be made, even by those who favour a significant nuclear component in future. It will be needed partly for purely operational and focus purposes and partly for the purpose referred to by the noble Baronesses, Lady Carnegy and Lady O'Cathain, which is to ensure public confidence. One reason why the Government are not disposed to maintain a significant nuclear component
GC 164
over the long term is precisely because we have not worked out how to deal with long-term waste and do not have public confidence in our ability to do so. If the same body was dealing with waste under the Bill as was responsible for creating new waste, public confidence in the objectivity, cost-effectiveness and priorities of the NDA would be undermined.
So even for those who want a bigger nuclear slice in our energy policy, it is not sensible to give the NDA responsibilities beyond those in the Bill. The noble Lord's amendment would provide that, or at least the ability to provide that.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I understand what the Minister said, but is there anything to prevent members of the Committee tabling an amendment of this sort to another part of the Bill—not relating it to the NDA? The Long Title includes the words,
"to make provision relating to the civil nuclear industry".
That seems to cover everything. Is there anything to prevent our tabling an amendment in a different context?
Lord Whitty: The noble Baroness has a wider experience of Committees of the House of Lords even than I do, so she will know that when a Long Title has a fairly wide definition, members of the Committee are prone to table all sorts of amendments. If she is giving us forewarning that such an amendment may appear later in our proceedings, I do not have the power to resist it procedurally. I may resist it in argument, but I suspect we may return to this argument later, if I understand her correctly.
Lord Lea of Crondall: I am gratified by the range and quality of the contributions made in response to the amendment. Things have been said from all parts of the Room that suggest that we seek to keep within the Bill's scope but to spell out the consequences of the philosophy, which is to keep the option open. Especially with the NDA, we want to do nothing to close off any contingency arrangement—I think that was my noble friend's phrase. Another phrase that he used about which I am not so sure was that nothing prevented the NDA from doing X, Y and Z. That is one reason for the amendment: the vires of the Bill must be pellucidly not preventing that.
What I think my noble friend referred to as the tertiary subsidiary point at the centre of the matter is the locus of the NDA on the sites. It will be the principal responsible agency on the site. It may be that someone else should be doing X, Y or Z, but the NDA will nevertheless have broad responsibility on those sites, will it not?
I am not making another speech, so I had better conclude. We are not looking for any change of policy in the Bill from that of the White Paper—not because some of us do not seek that; self-evidently we do, but we recognise that that is not the Bill's purpose. I hope that we have given each other food for thought about what can be done before Report. On that hopeful note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 24, at end insert "after consultation with representatives of the industry, the NDA itself and the person in charge of the site where the installations or facility are located"
The noble Lord said: This is another amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith. It concerns a comparatively small question: whether there should be consultation with various people in the industry and the NDA before the Minister makes a direction. I cannot believe that that would not happen. That, no doubt, is the answer in the Minister's brief, in which case why not write that into the Bill? I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I can give the noble Lord the assurance that on most occasions consultation would take place for all the best reasons. However, we are anxious that the amendment would introduce a mandatory requirement to consult. We can foresee the possibility of the kind of emergency where swift—or immediate—action would be necessary and it would be inappropriate to require the NDA to engage in consultation procedures.
The noble Lord will recognise that subsection (4) already requires the Secretary of State to secure the consent of the person with control unless that person is a public body, as defined in paragraphs (a) to (d) of the subsection. Beyond the legitimate interest of the NDA and the person with control of a particular installation or site, it is unclear what role representatives of the industry would play—or, indeed, who those people might be.
It would certainly not be possible to envisage who should be consulted when the NDA may have to move with considerable dispatch. So, although we recognise the intention behind the amendment—which is to tease out the extent to which we are committed to consultation—to make consultation mandatory would create difficulty in certain circumstances. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am not sure that I am convinced but at this stage I shall withdraw the amendment. We shall study what the noble Lord said and he should not be surprised if we decide to return to the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 8A
Page 3, line 32, at end insert ", provided that person has taken the necessary steps to ensure that decommissioning work and liabilities are funded through the establishment and maintenance of a fully financed segregated fund for that purpose"
The noble Lord said: A number of amendments have been grouped with this one. Many members of the Committee who are present today were involved in discussions on legislation affecting British Energy. We had to face up to the problem that, for various reasons, that company had been unable to build up a fund to meet its nuclear commitments. Therefore, those substantial commitments, totalling no less than £3.3 billion, had to be taken over by the Government. The powerful
GC 166
argument that the Government advanced was that we had to keep those facilities running in the wider interest of the nation.
None the less, none of us wants that situation to recur and the purpose of the amendment is to avoid that. Clause 3(4)(e) refers to,
"a person who has consented to the giving of the direction",
to deal with that nuclear waste—that person presumably being an organisation, body or company outside the public sector. The purpose of the amendment is therefore to make clear that that person will have set aside sufficient funds to deal with that operation so that it does not have to be taken over by a public organisation. That is its simple purpose. It is a highly desirable objective that should be stated.
In no way should it he implied in the Bill that any future operator in the private nuclear sector should feel that his liability to deal with nuclear waste would automatically be taken over by the public sector. We need a safeguard to ensure that the British Energy situation which we had to face recently does not recur. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: With the permission of the Committee and for its convenience—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will not mind—we have noted that Amendment No. 8A deals with the segregated fund, although in his wording it says a "fully" segregated fund. We have tabled two amendments, Amendments Nos. 16 and 64, which deal with the segregated fund. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to our two amendments at this stage. It would be silly to repeat the debate, even though the word "fully" does not appear in our amendments.
Clause 5(2) deals with income received by the NDA from directions which it gives to anyone in relation to a nuclear installation site or facility in which it does not have a financial responsibility under the financial provisions of Clause 21. Subsection (2) enables the NDA to make what are described as,
"payments to the Secretary of State".
Subsection (3) also deals with charges to be imposed by the NDA. There is no indication in the Explanatory Notes about what those charges may be for, but that is not important at this stage.
The clause entitles the NDA to charge someone for something. Clause 22 relates to expenditure and receipts by the NDA and includes a provision for the Secretary of State to make grants to the NDA. In both cases, the Bill requires the NDA to pay its income—other, of course, than the grants from the Secretary of State—to either the Secretary of State or the Consolidated Fund.
The Consolidated Fund could be described as being a euphemism for the bottomless pit or black hole operated by the Treasury, into which money somehow disappears, never to re-emerge in exactly the same form. Money paid into the Consolidated Fund is totally controlled by the Treasury, and there is no certainty that it will be available for the purpose for which it was intended if the Treasury has other calls

GC 167
upon it. Your Lordships may recall the pre-privatisation days when British Telecom, with its monopoly of telephone services, was a kind of milch cow for the Treasury, earning vast amounts annually but starved of funds for expansion of the service and new technology, and when there were waiting lists of weeks or months for a new line.
The work of the NDA is too important, too vital, to leave its funding in the hands of the Treasury in that way. The Treasury may have a different set of priorities for the use of the money. It is too important to allow the Treasury to take the money with one hand, to give it back with the other and, with a classic piece of creative accounting, to claim credit for all the money that it is providing—in other words, funding the NDA partially with its own money. Let me draw the Committee's attention to a few facts. BNFL has pointed out, among what it calls "key messages" in its recent brief, that:
"The creation of NDA proposed by this bill will lead to a transfer of assets and liabilities and a subsequent restructuring of BNFL's balance sheet".
I do not doubt that more liabilities than assets will have to be transferred, but we must be sure that those assets are used to meet the liabilities.
There is also the question of the cost of the new Civil Nuclear Constabulary. We still await a clear commitment from the Government that they will fund the transition costs of the current non-statutory police force. Those costs are estimated at about £1 million. The new civil constabulary is estimated to cost between £30 and £40 million a year, which is around 30 per cent more than at present. That money has to come from somewhere. Incidentally, BNFL thinks that the Treasury may be tempted to merge the new nuclear constabulary with the MoD force, possibly to save on costs. Although I am not debating that, it is clear that it is the Treasury and not the NDA that will have a large hand in policy making.
The Bill provides for the work of the NDA to be funded directly by the Government in the form of an annual grant. Over the years, the nuclear industry has set aside significant sums to discharge its nuclear liabilities. Nirex claims that a considerable proportion of those assets were provided for long-term waste management, as distinct from decommissioning and clean-up costs. Nirex then points out that funds for long-term clear-up must not be diverted into short-term waste management. Those funds must be ring-fenced and kept clearly separate from the £48 billion of liabilities that the NDA must address in the short term.
Depending on what the Minister may say—I am not sure which of the Ministers I am addressing on this point—I shall be pleased to hear from him by letter if he cannot deal with my points today. Later, either I or my colleagues in the other place may have to table a further amendment on the matter.
We are not talking about trivial sums here. Nirex is responsible for up to almost 14 per cent of the discounted BNFL liabilities. Those amount in total to between £700 million and £1.24 billion. While that marks a slight digression from the two amendments I
GC 168
am now addressing, I seek to make the point concerning control of the NDA's own income, generated by its own activities. My amendments would provide for that net income to go into a ring-fenced fund, still controlled by the Secretary of State, but freed from the grasp of the Treasury. Thus, the Treasury would be relieved of the great temptation to use that money for some purpose for which it is not intended. I hope that the Treasury would like that.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Perhaps I may add a few words to what my noble friend said. I preface by saying that, as a former Treasury Minister, I did not entirely recognise what my noble friend had to say. The Consolidated Fund is not a bottomless pit and it is very much subject to parliamentary control. However, the main point that my noble friend sought to make is right.
There is a long history of this. The Select Committee report contains words of wisdom about this. Paragraph 6.41 states:
"We have sympathy with the proposal for a segregated fund".
The point had been made to us, and that was our recommendation.
The argument has gone on since then. It was dealt with at some length by the Select Committee in another place towards the end of last year. I would not dream of reading out every paragraph, but it is interesting to look at the evidence on which it based its recommendation that there should be a segregated fund. It is attached to the report in the same volume.
The committee heard evidence from BNFL, which stated:
"Given the restricted funds available to the NDA and the fact that it has no power to borrow, it seems very likely that BNFL or any other M&O"—
that is management and operating—
"contractor would be looking for NDA commitments to be backed by government comfort".
That is the point of the exercise. Very large sums of money will be dispersed over the years to the contractors carrying out the work of decommissioning. It is clear that the Government recognise—this is their argument for the separate account—that there needs to be, as it were, words of comfort; there needs to be an assurance that when the money is required to be spent it will be there.
There is some suggestion in the report that perhaps in the light of the Government's assurances the objections of BNFL and the objections made on behalf of the industry by the Nuclear Industry Association—several paragraphs in the report refer to this—had been set at rest. That is not entirely the case. The current position is that the Government have said that they would prefer an account, whereas the industry still would prefer a segregated fund, the subject of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. But, in relation to the account and how it will be funded, the Government have yet to finalise and publish the mechanism for determining the initial and subsequent annual contributions.

GC 169
In those circumstances, the people who will look to the NDA to pay their contracting charges will require to be assured that as they incur the expenditure so the NDA will pay the bill. That is not yet the position. As my noble friend said, if there was a segregated fund, where the money was clearly there, there would be greater reassurance.
No doubt the present Chancellor of the Exchequer is even now wrestling with the problem—the results of which will appear in the next budget survey—of how he will meet his priorities for public spending on, for instance, health and education. If there turns out to be a hole, it would not be difficult to say that perhaps some of the nuclear decommissioning can be deferred for a while. In the mean time, what would the contractors do? If there were a fund, as has been powerfully argued by a number of bodies, including the Select Committee in another place, that assurance would be there.
That is the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. He quoted the example of British Energy, but that rather caught up with the Government at short notice, and they had to deal with the issue under considerable difficulties when we were debating the Bill last year.
We are looking at a long-term programme. It has had some years in preparation and build-up, with the original White Paper and the draft Bill that the committee considered in pre-legislative scrutiny. With the evidence that one has, there can be no excuse for the Government being caught short. It is the presence of a segregated fund rather than an account that relies on annual subvention from the Treasury that will provide the necessary reassurance.
It is an argument that must be taken seriously. I understand the difficulty that Ministers in the DTI and in Defra have convincing their Treasury colleagues of the weight of the arguments that are being made. If I had been sitting on the other side of the fence, I might have taken some time to be convinced. It is so important. The Government have, perfectly properly, made the whole decommissioning process the centrepiece of this stage of their energy policy. I argue strongly that they must make sure that it works and that, three or four years down the line, other pressures on public subvention do not stop the programme working as Ministers now wish. I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the amendments to which my noble friend spoke.
Lord Whitty: This is a difficult area. The amendments deal with various aspects of the charging of third parties for work carried out by the NDA, including the very large costs of decommissioning.
Amendment No. 8A would set a condition on the Secretary of State's ability under Clause 3(4)(e) to direct, with the operator's consent, the NDA to take over responsibility for private nuclear sites. It would require, as has been said, the operator to have a segregated fund to cover the costs of decommissioning its sites. In an ideal world, the Government would support the principle that any future operators of nuclear sites should be able to
GC 170
pay the costs of decommissioning. In reality, those costs are substantial, and we do not necessarily believe that it is appropriate for decommissioning funds to be held in advance of need.
It is not possible to establish an independent fund that is sufficient to support what appears to be the NDA's long-term programme, unless we get the operators to set aside billions of pounds to meet those decommissioning costs. To establish such a fund now, if it came from the public purse, would hardly be a prudent use of public funds. To require current and, indeed, if there were new nuclear build, future operators of nuclear power stations to do so would have a substantial effect on the economics of nuclear power.
I did not respond to the earlier thrust of what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said to the effect that the economics of nuclear power work out. Certainly, if we were to do it, the economics of nuclear power would not work out, whatever arguments we may have without this. Indeed, in the only example that we have before us now, the amendment would, in effect, prevent the Government meeting their commitment to stand behind British Energy and their liabilities to the extent that British Energy is unable to pay for them itself. Under the terms of the solvent restructuring agreement with British Energy, the company will pay moneys into a nuclear liabilities fund, and that fund is to meet the costs of the decommissioning of BE's nuclear stations and the costs of uncontracted liabilities. As part of that restructuring deal, the Government will have to underwrite that fund, in the event that that fund proves insufficient.
Unfortunately for Treasury Ministers, and for DTI and Defra Ministers, it is ultimately the responsibility of government to ensure the safe operations of the sites. Therefore the agreements with BE provide the Government with an option to acquire BE stations which BE has concluded it intends to close, and the costs of decommissioning will have to take that option into account. The ability to require British Energy or any future operator to establish comprehensive funds now would not he completely feasible. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, acknowledged, if the amendment were taken literally it would also prevent us dealing with emergencies such a nuclear train crash. Clearly the NDA would have to take over such a site immediately. I am sure that no one intended the amendment to have such an effect.
The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, seek to establish a new fund that would ensure that the NDA itself controls all commercial receipts, rather than their being paid into the Consolidated Fund. Grant income would also be paid into that nuclear liabilities fund. I assume that the concern is that future Treasury Ministers—not the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, in his time, I am sure—might look to use the fund for other purposes. Again, that fails to recognise the dimensions of the problem. The costs of clean-up activity and of decommissioning will far outstrip any likely income to the NDA from its commercial activities.

GC 171
The annual cost of clean-up may he predictable in the short to medium term, but it is not in the long term. As an example I cite the commercial revenues of operating plants such as the Magnox power stations. The NDA would therefore be wholly dependent on an annual grant from government to discharge its responsibilities. The idea that it would hold those moneys to meet the future costs of decommissioning is difficult. The NDA will be funded by the Government within the usual public spending plan.
The Nuclear Decommissioning Funding Account, by recording the NDA's expenditure and income and being maintained at a sufficient level to support a rolling 10-year programme of activity by the NDA in accordance with the agreed strategy, would provide sufficient confidence from the public and markets for the NDA to have the necessary resources to drive clean-up forward and encourage competition for clean-up contracts. However, to require the NDA to keep a fund that would meet all future contingencies would be difficult.
The intention of Amendments Nos. 13, 15 and 33 is to strengthen the interpretation that, in most if not all circumstances, third parties would be required to meet the costs of clean-up carried out by the NDA. That goes back to the "polluter pays" principle. The Government support that principle but there may again be circumstances in which a private sector operator cannot meet its nuclear obligations. In those circumstances, the Government's ultimate responsibility for human safety and the environment means that we must retain the possibility of the Government meeting such costs.
That will apply whether the Secretary of State decides to charge in a direction to the NDA or whether the NDA is carrying out its established function. Amendment No. 33 would impose a similar obligation on the NDA to charge for anything for which it does not have formal financial responsibility under Clause 21.
The amendments would not have the desired effect. Although I can see why people are reacting to the use of "may" in the circumstances—it seems to cut across the "polluter pays" principle—it recognises that there needs to be an element of discretion, the exercise of which will be subject to the normal requirements of administrative law. Replacing it with "should" would in practice introduce another level of uncertainty about what happens when the private operator's funds are not sufficient to meet the costs of the clean-up. That uncertainty is precisely what we want to avoid in the Bill.
Amendment No. 18 would prevent the Secretary of State giving the NDA the function of acting on his behalf in relation to agreements with third parties for nuclear decommissioning and clean-up activity. An example would be the NDA undertaking a similar arrangement to that made by the Government in respect of British Energy.
While I understand the argument, to proscribe the Government from using the NDA to fulfil such obligations would deprive them of the expertise and experience of the public body best equipped to deal with, for example, British Energy. If they were
GC 172
prevented in that regard, the Government would have to develop other expertise, thus duplicating the capacity of the NDA. That would not he in the best interests of the taxpayer or represent good value for money.
That is not to say that the Government's responsibility for funding these activities will be in any sense different because, as I have said, the commercial income of the NDA would not cover them. But using the NDA as a conduit or interface for any future British Energy-type crisis should not be prevented by this legislation.
The legislation should allow the NDA to take over not only responsibility for the clean-up of private sector sites—that is central to its function—but, in extremis, to meet the costs of those activities and to act on behalf of the Government in various ways to ensure that those activities are carried out and paid for.
This is a complicated group of amendments, all of which address the issue of the costs of clean-up and decommissioning. However, some of the suggested changes do not fully reflect the enormous costs involved or the reality that, in certain circumstances, it is inevitable that the operator will not have sufficient funds to cover those costs. Ideally, we would want to see all such costs internalised and any nuclear component of our future energy requirements to be so covered. However, the real world is not like that; it is certainly not like that now, as the position of British Energy demonstrates.
It is also difficult to envisage such a situation in the future, even for those members of the Committee who want to see a large nuclear sector. Were the economics to work out in the short term, there would still be a real problem if we restrict payment for decommissioning and clean-up either to segregated funds for the operator or to our pre-established fund for the NDA itself. Ultimately there may be some liability to he borne by government, but that is simply to recognise the reality of these matters.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I wish to apologise on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ezra. He deeply regrets the fact that he has had to leave the Committee to attend an urgent appointment at five o'clock. He is extremely sorry to have missed the debate and the Minister's response, but he will read carefully the report. Under any other circumstances, he would not have left the Committee.
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, say that this issue must be taken seriously. It is an enormous subject. In his response the Minister stressed that we must look at the reality of the situation. Of course we must do that, but it is also our duty when considering legislation of this kind to consider what should happen in an ideal world.
One of the difficulties of the Government's stance is that it does not recognise the problems of the past that we are trying to resolve so that we can approach the future on a more ideal footing. It is interesting to note

GC 173
that both the pro-nuclear build lobby and those members of the Committee who represent the antinuclear build lobby are agreed that this is something we want to see included in the Bill.
The amendment is desirable, first, for the reasons set out by my noble friend on introducing it and, secondly, because without it the whole of the rest of the private energy market will be skewed in favour of any future private nuclear operators. They will not have to consider seriously the costs of decommissioning.
I should also refer the Minister to what the then government said in their July 1995 policy review of radioactive waste management. They declared that segregated funds should be established for decommissioning. I wonder whether this Government have actively changed that policy, or whether it has been altered without any discussion anywhere other than in this Committee. I realise that a different government said that, but it seems to be a change of policy that slipped through.
Grouped with the amendment were our objections to Clauses 32 and 74 standing part of the Bill.
Lord Whitty: I apologise to the noble Baroness. I have not replied on the Question whether Clauses 32 and 74 shall stand part of the Bill. Perhaps the noble Baroness will wish to return to the issue when we reach those clauses.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: That will suit me admirably. I hope that by then my noble friend Lord Ezra will be here to speak to them.
I did not understand what the Minister meant when he said that the segregated fund would not be any good in emergencies. An emergency is a peculiar situation, and legislation could never cover every eventuality. We should aim at least to cover non-emergency situations, for which a segregated fund should be seriously considered.
Given the support that we have received from the other Benches, we shall return to the issue on Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I spoke to Amendment No. 8 and would like to comment further. I thought that I had the opportunity to do so. It would seem that I do not. I was told that I could, but never mind. I am afraid that I was misinformed.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Thomas of Walliswood): We were dealing with Amendment No. 8A, which has just been withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: That is all right.
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 4, line 6, at end insert—
"(8A) The Secretary of State shall exclude—

(a)from what he lays before Parliament and publishes under this section, and

(b)from what is to be laid before the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish Ministers,

anything the publication of which (otherwise than under any enactment) would constitute a breach of confidence actionable by any person."
The noble Lord said: As I understand the rules, my noble friend would have to wait until we reached the amendments that she spoke to.
In moving Amendment No. 9, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 56, 57 and 58. The amendments address an issue that the industry feels is extremely important and crucial—confidentiality. It refers not only to existing companies—although, naturally, they are primarily concerned—hut also to any future potential contractors, some of which are major companies, and perhaps companies from overseas, which may be interested in participating in this market.
The first group of amendments relates to the publication of the directions by the Secretary of State, and the second group relates to the publication of the annual report. They are two separate groups, but it is sensible that we discuss them together.
The point can be stated very shortly. Under the Bill, information provided to the NDA—or, indeed, any material that the NDA may already possess—may be excluded from publication on grounds of national security but not on grounds of commercial confidentiality. That is felt to be a nonsense.
The whole point of creating the NDA is to drive down costs through competition. We have already discussed that, so I do not need to dwell on it, but competition requires competing contractors. Contractors will not come forward if they feel that, by doing so, their commercially sensitive knowledge and information will become unprotected and liable to be put in the public domain. As my brief puts it—it is another rhetorical question—if you were in their shoes, would you?
We are going to try to attract some of the leading companies in the world—many of which may come from the United States, but others have experience of decommissioning—to come forward and play their part in a major UK programme. By the time that the Bill comes into operation, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 will be in force, but the Bill does not recognise the conditions and protections allowed by that Act. The Bill appears to confine itself merely to national security.
I made a considerable point at Second Reading that we all recognise that openness and transparency are key to the success of the NDA, but that must take account of real commercial confidentiality issues, as does the Freedom of Information Act 2000. What is the difference? Why should that Act protect commercial information while the Bill does not? I am advised that our amendments are consistent with the Act and would not fall foul of it.
Existing contractual commitments always include confidentiality obligations. The Bill now requires disclosure of that information and provides no protection for companies—BNFL or UKAEA, for instance—in relation to breach of contract or other legal liability resulting from disclosure of information. In this industry, as in many others, operational information is commercially confidential. It has a commercial value and, in an environment that will be increasingly competitive, that factor must be taken into account. Information disclosed in that way would be of significant value to competitors.
As I said, that applies not only to the existing firms, but to those that may be looking at the opportunity of coming into the industry. In the absence of protection for their commercial information, they will see a considerable no-no. We have an opportunity in the Bill to put that right. The disclosure duties placed on site licensees by the Bill, and the related duties placed on the NDA to publish the material that it receives, could deter prospective contractors from taking up site licences or investing in site licensee companies where that would expose them to excessive obligations and potentially to third-party claims for breach of confidentiality. That point was made to me very forcefully.
The very broad disclosure obligations in the Bill severely restrict the NDA's ability to secure value for money, which Ministers have today reiterated is part of the purpose of the whole exercise. They would also restrict the NDA's ability to act in the manner that it considers most beneficial to the public and to obtain value for taxpayers. I cannot help feeling that that argument must have been raised with Ministers by the industries concerned, and I am rather puzzled about why Ministers have not seen fit to respond to the argument as must be necessary. The whole process will not work unless there is proper protection for commercial information. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: As my noble friend pointed out, this is a very serious matter. I regret the time that I spent writing my speech in support of his amendment because he covered every issue that I could possibly think of. There is virtually nothing left for me to say, other than that the issue is so important that I do not understand why it has not been catered for anyway. The problem is that, when one tables an amendment—one can do nothing in Grand Committee other than to raise an amendment—invariably the Government say that it is not necessary or give some such response. This amendment is totally necessary. There is no reason why the protections given by the Freedom of Information Act should not extend to these extraordinarily important matters.
As I discussed in an earlier amendment, and as my noble friend —and indeed the Minister—mentioned, one of the NDA's duties is to ensure that it seeks competitive tenders. But one cannot have competitive tenders if nobody is prepared to put their hat in the
GC 176
ring and compete because they cannot keep confidential any information that they should be able to withhold.
I noticed that the Minister turned around to have a big chat with one of his officials. My noble friend said that he could not believe that other people had not discussed the matter with the DTI. Although we cannot divide in Grand Committee, I hope that we will have the pleasure of not having to bring back the amendment on Report and that it will have been agreed here; otherwise, we will most certainly bring it back.
Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Lord emphasised the great significance that he attaches to the amendment. He remarked that foreign companies might submit bids and mentioned those from the United States. He will probably recognise that if such companies are used to making submissions in the United States, they will have been subject to American legislation, which is as extensive as any statutes in this country. I am not sure that such companies would necessarily be deterred by the situation here.
Of course the Government understand the concern to protect certain information related to the interests of organisations and individuals, but that must be balanced against the interests of openness and transparency. We should surely think carefully before imposing wide-ranging restrictions on publishing or laying before Parliament information.
It is hard to see who might be affected by the information in directions containing designations. The directions will identify what is to be designated to the NDA. They are therefore likely to include little more than a description of what the NDA is required to clean up. It is in everyone's interests, as a matter of effective parliamentary scrutiny and public confidence in the NDA, that that information be made available.
As the noble Lord said, the Bill contains national security restrictions. I have difficulty in accepting why commercially confidential information should require the same degree of protection. In respect of the NDA's annual report, the Bill provides for a discretionary restriction on matters of national security, but what it will describe in terms of the NDA is surely information that will be necessary for the wider public and Parliament. The NDA will inevitably, and necessarily, hold commercially sensitive information on operators and contractors. The noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, are right to emphasise that fact. Before making any such information publicly available, as a matter of normal practice the NDA will be expected to seek the consent of the organisations affected.
In the event that agreement cannot be reached, the Freedom of Information Act provides for the matter to be referred to the Information Commissioner for a determination on whether the information should be made public. There is also a right of appeal to the courts, should a party feel dissatisfied with a determination. Given our clear commitment to ensure that the NDA becomes a model of openness and transparency, we should not rush to impose additional

GC 177
restrictions on it. Excessive secrecy is seen as having been one of the failings of the nuclear industry in the past. We must change that culture, if the NDA is to command public confidence. That approach to openness has been central to our efforts to carry all stakeholders, employees, local communities, trade unions and environmental groups with us.
The explicit provisions proposed in the amendments would not inspire confidence that the creation of the NDA will make a significant change to the management of nuclear clean-up. I recognise from the strength with which those points were put by the two noble Lords that my reply may not entirely satisfy them at this juncture. Therefore, I would be verging on the excessively optimistic if I thought that this was the last that we would hear of the argument in the context of this Bill. There are other stages at which issues may be more fully pressed.
I emphasise that we must protect national security, but we must also ensure that, when commercially sensitive information is released, efforts are made in consultation to secure the agreement of those who supplied the information. The NDA must be free to use information on commercial activity in pursuit of its functions. It will need to promote competition and will not, therefore, release information that compromises the duty of ensuring that competition is fair. The NDA will not release information that would give unfair advantage to others in the competitive situation that we seek to create, with as secure, sound and level a playing field for competitors as is possible and consistent with the objectives that we discussed earlier. By the same token, we have a clear objective in the Bill: aspects of the operation of the NDA will need to be as open as possible for parliamentary scrutiny and public confidence. We know that problems relating to the industry have sometimes flowed from the excessive withholding of information that ought to have been in the public domain.
Baroness O'Cathain: Will the Minister put himself in the mind of a company that would be prepared to bid for a contract for the NDA work? There are such things as intellectual property rights. If that organisation were to read the Minister's speech and be told that, if it did not like what was happening, it could go to the Information Commissioner and that, if it did not like what happened then, it could go to the courts, would it be bothered even to tender for the contract?
Lord Davies of Oldham: As I said, first of all, the NDA would be concerned to encourage as many participants in the bidding process as possible and to create fairness between them. That means that it would have due regard to commercially sensitive information. However, in order properly to inform Parliament and the wider public about how it carries out its duties, the authority's first recourse would be to ensure that it consulted the organisations that had submitted such information before using it in the reporting process. So, there would be consultation at that stage.
Secondly, as I said, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, aggrieved parties have other means of redress against the NDA, if the consultation
GC 178
has broken down and they feel that the process is operating unfairly in respect of one organisation or bidder. That would, in any case, be contrary to the effective operation of the NDA, and we would expect it to carry out its functions and guard against such an eventuality.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am a little confused. The Minister started by saying that what was contained in the clause would be laid before Parliament and the Scots Parliament and that it would not contain confidential information. He then went on to give a long argument, which was not particularly well informed, about the confidentiality of sensitive matters from the company's point of view. Either we do or do not consider that the amendment applies to the clause. Can the Minister inform the Committee whether or not sensitive and confidential matters will be laid under the clause?
Lord Davies of Oldham: I was seeking to illustrate that in the annual report which the NDA will make to Parliament—and given the necessity of making its processes as open as possible—it will seek to provide the requisite information which, as I have indicated, will not substantially involve information of commercial confidentiality. It will describe the functions it has carried out and its responsibility for carrying them out. Within that framework a very limited amount of information would relate to the competitive bidding of organisations seeking to obtain contracts.
We recognise that the NDA will be in possession of confidential information—it cannot fail to be, on the basis of such bids—but if the NDA feels that any aspects of the situation require it to produce such information in its report, its first duty would be to consult the organisations concerned to establish which parts of that information they were prepared to see made public. If the consultation is successful in those terms, the NDA will reach a position where anxieties are allayed. If not, and the NDA has to proceed further, I have indicated the ways in which, under our freedom of information legislation, organisations have recourse to law if they believe the NDA has acted unfairly.
Baroness Byford: Before my noble friend replies, as an amateur among professionals I must say that I am appalled by the Minister's ability to accept the thrust of the argument made by other noble Lords and then to suggest that perhaps the NDA would not use such information, but perhaps it would. He then said that if the companies agree the information can be printed quite happily. But if they do not agree, it would not be a question of keeping out the information; it would be put in and the companies would have to seek recourse in another way. But, by then, all the information will be out in the public domain.
I apologise for being such an amateur but I find it an extraordinary situation. The horse will have bolted; the problem will have occurred. The Government do

GC 179
not seem to be willing to address the issue. I can see that one or two of the people sitting behind the Minister are busily writing. This is a matter to which he should give urgent and greater thought. I hope that he will do so.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am most grateful to those of my noble friends who have joined in this important argument. As I listened to the Minister's reply, I was reminded of the architectural feature outside ancient Roman houses called a Janus figure, which looks both ways. The first part of the Minister's response was a perfectly reasonable plea. He said that we are all arguing for transparency, disclosure of information and so on, and therefore this is a part of that. If that meant that secrets had to be disclosed, so be it.
The second part of the Minister's reply was, "Mind you, by the time that the Freedom of Information Act is enforced all kinds of remedies will be available to contractors to keep information out of the public domain". My noble friend Lady Byford has just raised the important point of whether the information has to be published before they can go to the commissioner and the courts under that Act. If so, the whole thing is pointless. If the FIA procedures are open to contractors who are in a position where commercial information is threatened to be disclosed, in either a designation or an annual report, and if the contractors can then get a decision on that before any disclosure happens, why can that not be put into the Bill? Why do we have to have two separate pieces of legislation that say different things?
If the noble Lord is right that there will be a remedy under the Freedom of Information Act, for goodness' sake, let us have the same remedy here. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government are resisting this. If it will be there as soon as the FIA comes into force—and I am told that it will be in force by the time the whole process starts—let us have it in the Bill. Why not?
Lord Davies of Oldham: I hear what the noble Lord says. The whole point of the Committee stage is for us to think seriously about such representations. However. I emphasise to him and to everyone who has articulated the argument that we are seeking to extend the openness of the NDA's activities in order to build up public confidence with regard to that aspect of its operations. That will develop public confidence in its judgments and policies.
I thought that I had identified that the areas where commercially sensitive information was involved would be very limited indeed in respect of the NDA's accountability to Parliament and the way in which it must describe how it has fulfilled its functions. Where there is the possibility of information that is commercially sensitive being disclosed, the NDA would need to consult the companies and organisations so affected.
The NDA has to protect its process. It will want the strongest competitive position possible, of course. Anything that frightened off commercial organisations from applying because they believed that, by doing
GC 180
so, they would automatically give an advantage to competitors through such information, would he totally against the NDA's interests. It would seek to reach agreement on how it would use commercially sensitive information. The consultation process is there to safeguard the interests of those who submit themselves to the competitive process.
Baroness Byford: I hear what the Minister says. He refers to very limited use but, ultimately, someone—presumably the NDA—decides. Let us imagine that my noble friend's company objects to confidential information being published. Once the NDA had made the decision she would be in no position to appeal or to go anywhere else before the information was put into the public domain. I do not think the Minister has addressed that aspect of the matter we are trying to put forward very clearly.
Earl Attlee: The Minister has nearly got the point. Surely the risk is that a commercial concern will not take any risk; that it will not get involved for fear of losing its intellectual property rights.
Lord Davies of Oldham: If such a risk were manifest the NDA would be vitiating its capacity to fulfil its functions in terms of ensuring that bids were successful for the work that it needed to carry out. Of course the NDA has to act with very considerable sensitivity. I merely seek to emphasise that we do not think that the annual report—the necessary reporting of the NDA to Parliament—and the aspects that naturally go into the public domain with regard to designation will involve commercially sensitive information. But if it were thought that there was a danger, the NDA's obligation would be to talk to the companies or organisations concerned with the information to reach an agreement with them. If it failed to do that, it would risk real alienation of bidders in terms of property rights and of intellectual property rights. Loss of confidence in those terms would mean that the NDA could not discharge its functions to the nation.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I apologise to the Minister for stopping him in full flow. When he started to answer on the amendment, the Minister said that it would not be "substantially included in". I am not asking how much "substantially" is, but once he says that it will not be "substantially included in", it means that part of the confidential matter will be in the public arena. No member of the Committee can understand how the Minister thinks that that is appropriate, when even the Freedom of Information Act 2000 would not allow that. So what is the difficulty? He is quite right: we will return to the amendment, but we should not need to; it should be accepted now.
Baroness O'Cathain: May I suggest a nice way for the Minister to get out of this? That is to send the Bill back to the lawyers, together with all our contributions, to say "This is the problem; do they have right on their side? If they do, just change the Bill".
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I cannot add anything to that. It is a tough vote on this occasion. Indeed, I thought I detected a glimmer of hope in the Minister's first reply that the Government would look at it again. Without trying to be unkind, I think that the Minister found himself on exceedingly shaky ground in trying to draw a distinction between the Bill and the Freedom of Information Act 2000. If the remedies of the Freedom of Information Act are open to the contractors as he asserted, then it would be sensible to put that provision in the Bill. The Minister may be sure we shall come back to that. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
6.30 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I tabled this Motion to provide a peg for what I hope will be a reasonably brief debate. We have debated various aspects of Clause 3 at some length and it may well be that other members of the Committee will want to make different points from me. I want to raise only one point at this time.
This is an opportunity for the Government to clear up what are widely perceived as uncertainties about the NDA's role in the disposal of long-term waste. As I said on Second Reading, when the Bill was first published, and at a meeting that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was kind enough to call upstairs, there was widespread doubt in the industry as to whether we should expect some other body following the CoRWM report or, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has, I think, subsequently said, that that may become a function of the NDA.
We had an exchange at Question Time. The Question was originally asked by my noble friend Lord Attlee about the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management. CoRWM, and the exchanges continued about geological disposal. Then the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, asked:
"My Lords, reference has been made to the length of time we have already spent on this subject and the length of time we may still spend on it. Can the noble Lord indicate whether he thinks that as a result of some slight speeding up, this could be resolved when the proposed Nuclear Decommissioning Authority comes into office?".
In response, the Minister said:
"My Lords, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority will not deal with the kind of waste we are talking about here—it is about cleaning up sites. The timescale envisaged in the Energy Bill, which we debated last week, for the establishment of the NDA would probably be before the committee had completed its work".— [Official Report, 16/12/03; col. 1054.]
GC 182
Defra is the department to deal with nuclear waste; that Question was not for the DTI.
We raised the matter at the meeting on 6 January, and I came down from that meeting to find in my pigeonhole in the Attendants' Office a copy of a letter originally addressed to my noble friend Lord Attlee and copied to several of us that appears to correct what the Minister said on 16 December. In it, the Minister cited his Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and went on to discuss the different kinds of waste. We are primarily discussing high and medium-level waste, but it is clear that the NDA will deal with low-level waste because, as I said on Second Reading, the Explanatory Notes refer to the Drigg repository.
The Minister states in his letter of 16 January:
"It is also taken to include those proportions of spent fuel, plutonium and uranium which are likely to become regarded as waste during this period. In practice, the NDA's responsibility will be for the operational management of the wastes—including the 'higher activity wastes'—that arise or are held on the sites it takes over. This is provided for by clauses 3 (NDA functions) and 34 (clarifying definitions) of the Energy Bill. The NDA must manage its waste in line with Government policy. And this includes policy for the very long-term management upon which CoRWM will be delivering its recommendations. This is the key distinction between the role of the NDA and CoRWM which I was seeking to delineate.
Also, in referring to the long-term solution needing to be good for 'centuries', the meaning intended was until there was no further danger from the waste, which may of course, in practice, be many centuries. That is why above I have talked of the very long-term management policy above".
With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that is about as clear as mud. It is not yet clear whether, following the CoRWM report—we have already referred to the fact that that will mark the next stage in the process of long-term disposal of intermediate and high-level waste—it will be that body that does that. The Answer in Parliament said, "No"; I think that the letter attempts to say. "Yes".
I have received legal advice to say that the answer to the question that I asked on Second Reading—is the Bill intended to cover the disposal of medium and high-level waste?—is "Yes", in which case we can all go home. Well, we cannot yet, because it is not yet time, but I must say that the Government have been speaking with forked tongue on the matter. It is not yet clear.
The right answer may well be that NDA will have responsibility in the course of its decommissioning exercises to ensure that wastes are handled safely and properly in the interim. There is surface storage at most nuclear power stations; some activities involve transport of that waste to Sellafield. Do we need a definition of "disposal" in Clause 34, to which the Minister referred? There is no definition there.
Having received the letter, for all its obscurity, I got the impression that a separate definition might not be necessary, but it is appropriate in a clause stand part debate specifically to pose the question: does the N DA have the power to deal with the matter, when the time

GC 183
is right, after the CoRWM report and after the Government have made up their mind and made their announcement in Parliament? Will it be for that body, or will there have to be another one?
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: Perhaps I may take this opportunity to enquire about the Government's intention regarding issuing directions containing a designation. Until now, the emphasis of the debate has been on the possibility of the Government disclosing more information than the NDA or its contractors might wish to have disclosed. But, so far as I can see, nothing in this clause requires the Government to disclose anything at all. It would be reassuring to have an indication that the reasons for the designation might at least he advanced as a requirement in making statements and laying them before Parliament.
Lord Whitty: In response to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, my response to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, might inadvertently have caused confusion. I thought that his question related to longterm management of high-level waste. I think that other members of the Committee drew the impression that I meant that the NDA would not he responsible for high-level waste. That is not the intention; the NDA is responsible for all levels of waste at those sites that it manages, and under any designation. It is therefore carrying out government policy in that respect—there are sites that it manages and others that are designated. But that does not mean that all high-level nuclear waste is the NDA's responsibility.
CoRWM has been asked to look at the long-term management and disposal of high-level waste and at intermediate and low-level waste that is unsuitable for disposal at Drigg. We await the report of CoRWM recommending government policy on what the long-term aim should be—we anticipate that it will be published at the end of next year. The Government's response to the report will determine what the NDA's role will be in that regard. After all, the NDA carries out government policy; it does not make it. The Bill reflects current government policy that the NDA will be responsible for the management of the sites allocated to them. The CoRWM may recommend that the NDA should take over all responsibility for the long-term disposal and management of high-level waste in general, but we are not at that point. The Bill would allow the NDA to take on that responsibility, but it does not determine that the NDA take on wider responsibilities. The government policy determined in the light of the CoRWM advice will specify the NDA's role at that point.
On defining "disposal" of radioactive waste, the disposal and discharge of radioactive waste through air, water and land are regulated by the Environment Agency under Chapter 12 of the Radioactive Substances Act 1993. That is not altered by the Bill; therefore, we do not propose substituting a new definition of "disposal". Obviously, the NDA will work closely with the nuclear regulators in England and Wales to ensure that it adheres
GC 184
to the regulatory framework. The CoRWM report may also cover the long-term strategy on that. The noble Lord may think that that does not clarify things totally, but I hope that it indicates the difference in time scale. The NDA is responsible for the sites allocated to it, and CoRWM will make recommendations on the long-term management of radioactive waste.
The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, made a point about issuing directions on designations. In making designations, the Government will indicate their reasons for them. In most cases, they will be apparent, but there is no requirement for any vast amount of detail in the Bill. Obviously, there will as ever be a responsibility on the Government to act reasonably, and, in such circumstances, that includes making clear the reasons for the designation.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Before the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, replies, can the Minister tell me whether there is any difference between the NDA having a "responsibility" and the NDA having a "duty"? Frequently, in legislation, we find that a body has a duty to do something, but here, all the time until much later in the Bill, there is reference to a responsibility. Clause 9 refers to a duty.
Lord Whitty: The responsibilities are as set out largely in this clause and, to some extent, in Clause 9. They are the areas for which—I do not wish to be tautologous—the NDA is responsible. The duties are laid on them either by Act of Parliament or by designation by the Secretary of State. There are duties laid on it in both respects. Future designations could spell that out more clearly than the Bill. That could arise in the light of the CoRWM recommendations and the Government's response to them. Further duties could be laid on the NDA at that point, which would not be inconsistent with the Bill.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I have heard what the Minister has said, and I shall read it carefully. My impression of what he said was that it was a little clearer than the letter. I think that he said, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Dorner, that there was no such duty on the NDA yet. If the Government decide, in the light of the CoRWM report, that the way is open for all the processes that will be needed for long-term disposal, the NDA could be the body that is charged with the duty of taking the matter forward, but that is not necessarily so. Is that right? If it is to be the relevant body, it has or could have sufficient power under the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, nods assent, having consulted his oracles, so I think that I have got that right.
We must consider this carefully. We have until the end of 2005 before CoRWM is expected to report. I understand that, and I fear that a lot of time has been lost on the matter already since the House of Lords report. Nevertheless, I think that there is a view now that it is time to get on with things, particularly if the

GC 185
public are to be reconciled to the idea that we need new nuclear build, for all the reasons that have been discussed. The way ahead on the problem of waste must be sufficiently clear to reassure the public. I am grateful for the noble Lord's response.
Clause 3 agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 12:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
"DUTIES IN RELATION TO NEW AND POTENTIAL NEW NUCLEAR PLANTS

(1) In addition to the responsibilities placed on the NDA by section 3 of this Act, it shall have the responsibilities provided for in this section.

(2) For the avoidance of doubt, the obligations of the NDA imposed by this Act shall apply equally to any nuclear installation, site or facility commissioned after the commencement of this Act.

(3) Within Five years from the passing of this Act, the NDA shall submit a plan ("the plan") to the Secretary of State on the subject of the feasibility of building and commissioning new nuclear power plants to replace those becoming or likely to become obsolete within the ensuing fifteen years.

(4) The plan shall include projections as to the economies of such plants and their eventual decommissioning and as to the effect on the supply of electricity to the various parts of the United Kingdom in the absence of new nuclear facilities, and may include such other material as the NDA may consider to be relevant to the subject.

(5) The Secretary of State shall lay the plan before Parliament within one month of its receipt, and after consultation with such persons or bodies as he deems appropriate shall publish his response."

The noble Baroness said: The amendment is slightly more abstract and theoretical in concept than others that I shall table. That is why I need to explain it at slightly greater length than normal. I ask for the indulgence of the Committee.
First, I shall deal with proposed new subsection (2) in the amendment, which seeks simply to remove a drafting ambiguity by making it clear that the duties of the NDA extend not only to existing nuclear power plants but to any which may be built in the future. In other words, the amendment makes it clear that what is being set up by the Bill is not an authority that will die a natural death when it completes the immediate task before it of ensuring the safe decommissioning of the 20 nuclear power plants currently in service or already in the process of decommissioning.
I should make it clear—emphatically—that if the Government accept the proposed new subsection, as I hope they will, we will acknowledge that we do not consider that they are committing themselves in any way to any new nuclear build. The subsection is simply intended to ensure that there is no end to the role of the NDA as long as—however long—there is a nuclear power industry.
The main substance of the proposed new clause requires the NDA to prepare a plan within five years of the passing of the Act to cover its duties and responsibilities in the event that any new nuclear plants are built. Of course, in preparing that plan the
GC 186
NDA will have to have regard to every aspect of the feasibility of building such new plants, both economically and from the point of view of the need for them and the effect they will have on our electricity supplies.
The energy White Paper, which one might have thought would have something to say on the subject, was non-committal, except to the extent that it predicted that only one plant would still be in operation by 2025. That is just 21 years away. I raised the point at Second Reading but the Minister said in reply:
"The policy has been set out in the White Paper".—[Official Report, 11/12/03; col. 918.]
And what did the White Paper say on the question of future nuclear build? It stated:
"We do not propose to set targets for the share of total energy or electricity supply to be met from different fuels".
If the Government are not going to set targets, who is?
What has the question of whether we build any further nuclear power stations got to do with the NDA? It has everything to do with it because the last of the present nuclear stations will still be operational until, as I have said, 2025—or perhaps until 2035, according to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, in answer to a Question. To decommission each of the plants will take decades. I hope that the noble Lord realises that I listen very carefully and read what has been said afterwards.
The NDA has to plan for that and for the future in case new plants are built. It has to be involved in the planning of new plants for which later on it may ultimately be responsible. It has to make sure that the mistakes made in the 1940s and 1950s, when the earliest plants were built, will not be repeated. Those mistakes were not including in the plans for a new plant the facilities necessary for its ultimate decommissioning and waste management.
Currently—and here I quote from the brief that I and many Members of the Committee have received from BNFL—in the case of older plants,
"the biggest challenge is not how to tackle a particular task, but determining exactly what has to be dealt with".
I also draw attention to the fact that the skills and expertise in decommissioning need to be preserved intact, both for our own purposes and to enable those skills to be exported in the future.
The NDA has to be involved from the outset in all the necessary planning of any future nuclear plants. The amendment makes sure that it will be part of the equation if and when the Government make any decision about future nuclear build. It is certainly not my place—nor is it my intention—to repeat the arguments that members of the Committee have heard many times, especially in the course of recent debates, about the place of nuclear energy in our power equation. The Minister of State told the All-Party Group on Nuclear Energy on 3 December that,
"we need the possibility of new nuclear build".
He did not say that to Parliament. No doubt, in due course we shall be told whether or not that is government policy. If it is, the NDA needs to plan and prepare for it. That is all this amendment would require it to do.
Again, let me make it absolutely clear that I am not at this time asking the Government to announce a policy either for or against nuclear power. Indeed, at Second Reading, the Minister stated that:
"It is not appropriate to provide in legislation a commitment to nuclear build".—[0fficial Report, 11/12/03; col. 918.]
All this amendment requires is for one of the players in the field—the NDA—to make some plans during the next five years and for the Government to consider them at whatever point they think it necessary and appropriate to do so. I ask nothing more and seek no commitment either way. I beg to move.
Lord Maclennan of Bogart: I recall that, in answer to an earlier amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that it was not necessary. Do we assume that if, in the future—which he was not prepared to look at too closely—a decision were taken to pursue nuclear build, the NDA would necessarily be the body to discharge that role? I am equally dubious about whether it is the body to pronounce on the issues that this proposed new clause suggests. Essentially this is a policy matter, one which could he interestingly and helpfully illuminated by factual information of a kind more at the disposal of a Royal Commission or some other body not engaged in something as hands-on as the decommissioning of existing reactors. I would hope that the personnel engaged in that task are particularly suited to it. I am not at all sure whether they would be suited to evaluating the kind of evidence relating to whether there should be replacement plants—I agree that it ought to be considered within the next five years.
I agree with the underlying thesis of this amendment—that there is an unacceptable and, in a sense, unnecessary uncertainty. The independent collation of the best evidence that is undoubtedly available on the pros and cons of what is described as the "feasibility" of commissioning and building a new nuclear power plant ought to be given urgent consideration. However, I doubt that this is the right body to do that.
Lord Whitty: To a certain extent we are going over the ground covered in our debate on the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Lea. The noble Baroness rightly said that this amendment does not presume a shift to nuclear build. The secondary point just referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, is that if we did have nuclear build, whether the NDA should be responsible for planning and assessing such a project.
I do not need to rehearse the argument. The energy White Paper does not envisage the need for additional nuclear build, but even if the Government were minded to revert to the nuclear option, we do not consider the NDA to be the appropriate body either to run such a power station or to produce a plan on the feasibility of building a new power station.
GC 188
As the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, made clear, that is an issue of policy and the assessment of the practicality of any proposals which may emanate from the generating industry to produce such a power station. Such proposals would be subject to a whole range of assessments by regulatory authorities both here and under European law, as well as to the Government's assessment of the economics. It would not be appropriate to divert—and it would be a diversion— the NDA to deal with such planning and feasibility issues. Its focus must he on how to deal with the consequences of our nuclear past.
Subsection (2), which the noble Baroness says is for the avoidance of doubt, is unnecessary because Clause 3(1) does not differentiate between current or future nuclear facilities. It means that the NDA could deal with the waste and decommissioning of future facilities, were they to be built, as well as past ones. Therefore any avoidance of doubt is not necessary. There is no inhibition on the NDA dealing with future nuclear build.
The focus of the NDA must be on clean-up and decommissioning. Indeed, that focus was widely supported by all stakeholders and was central to the proposals for the creation of the NDA. It one of the reasons why people with differing views on the future of nuclear power have all supported the concept of the NDA. It should not be diverted into issues of policy, new build and the running of nuclear facilities. If the NDA were to be given the responsibilities suggested in the amendment, it would have to develop a new tranche of expertise and skills which could only divert it from its central task.
The NDA has been given the crucial and very important task of carrying out the secure and cost-effective clean-up of our nuclear legacy. That in itself is a massive task. The estimated cost currently stands at £50 billion and the estimated time-scale is 100 years. The noble Baroness suggested that after the NDA had done all that, it might move on to something else. She did point out that that was a theoretical suggestion, but we may assume that future governments will take a view when the current task is finished. However, we must focus on the present task. To divert and dilute the NDA's focus would be wrong and would not deliver the advantages we see in creating the NDA in the form proposed by the Bill.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: As an aside, when referring to new nuclear build, the Minister said "We do not envisage it". Given that, I wonder why we hear continually that the Government are keeping the option open. In answer to a question last week, I believe the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said that, "It will not be necessary", or something of that ilk. If necessary, I shall look up the exact reference.
I understand entirely what the Minister is saying; that the NDA is not necessarily the correct body to undertake preparing plans because it has too many other things to do. I shall certainly read carefully what the Minister has said, but this issue is extraordinarily

GC 189
important. It may be that at some stage the Government will say, "Perhaps we do need some new nuclear build". We do not know. We certainly heard one Minister remark at a dinner not too long ago that he envisaged it would be necessary to have some new nuclear build.
All I am trying to do is to help the Government by providing a vehicle. I should say that it is always my intention to help the Government. My noble friends know that, as do noble Lords on the other side of the Committee. It would be terrible if the Government woke up one morning and decided that, "Gosh, that is what we need. What a pity we did not think it through and prepare a plan".
GC 190
Perhaps I have used the wrong vehicle to achieve that—the noble Lord made the same point—and we shall have to rethink. We may be in a position to come back to the issue at a more appropriate stage. At this point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Lord Triesman: This may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until Tuesday at 3.30 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): The Committee stands adjourned until Tuesday 20 January at 3.30 p.m.
The Committee adjourned at seven o'clock.

  Afghanistan: Aid and Education
  Afghanistan: Aid and Education
  Cross-Border Implementation Bodies
  Cross-Border Implementation Bodies
  Belfast Agreement
  Belfast Agreement
  Emergency Vehicles: Road Traffic Legislation
  Emergency Vehicles: Road Traffic Legislation
  West Coast Main Line
  West Coast Main Line
  Horse Passports
  Horse Passports
  Iraq: Oil Industry
  Iraq: Oil Industry
  Iraq: Elections
  Iraq: Elections
  Moldova
  Moldova
  Russia: Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Materials
  Russia: Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Materials
  Morocco: UN Peace Plan
  Morocco: UN Peace Plan
  Armenia: Human Rights
  Armenia: Human Rights
  Syria: Human Rights
  Syria: Human Rights
  FCO: Questions for Written Answer
  FCO: Questions for Written Answer
  Director-General of Higher Education
  Director-General of Higher Education
  School Bereavement Counsellors
  School Bereavement Counsellors
  Ministerial Correspondence
  Ministerial Correspondence
  Newspapers and Periodicals: Price Cutting
  Newspapers and Periodicals: Price Cutting
  Working Time Regulations: Right to Opt Out
  Working Time Regulations: Right to Opt Out
  Alcohol Misuse: Impact on Emergency Services
  Alcohol Misuse: Impact on Emergency Services
  vCJD and HIV/AIDS
  vCJD and HIV/AIDS
  Obesity
  Obesity

  Criminal Records Bureau
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)
  On 27 February 2003, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced the Government's response to the recommendations of the independent review team appointed the previous September to take a fundamental look at the operation of the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB). One of its recommendations was that the Capita contract should be renegotiated to align the contract to the changed and evolving circumstances that had occurred since the original contract was signed back in August 2000. Following a thorough and constructive period of negotiation, the Criminal Records Bureau and Capita signed a revised contract on 22 December 2003.

  The revised contract is a major step forward for the CRB and represents a substantial improvement over the previous terms. The revised contract now provides for:

  as a result of recent and planned efficiency savings, from October 2004, a significant reduction in the price paid to Capita for processing each disclosure application;

  the ability to achieve year-on-year operational cost reductions with further incentives to reduce operational costs over the lifetime of the contract; any such cost savings would be reflected in further price reductions; pricing levels matched to guaranteed volumes, agreed on a bi-annual basis;

  additional contractual performance measures including both qualitative and quantitative standards to enhance further the disclosure service; far greater clarity of roles and responsibilities within the partnership;

  incentives to allow Capita to further enhance the IT and other technical systems to meet evolving process and output requirements;

  the implementation of recommendations made by independent consultants on the IT system;

  an improved agreement in respect of financial penalties for failing to meet agreed performance standards, which have been revised to meet the evolving circumstances that had occurred since the original contract was signed back in August 2000;

  a one-off payment to Capita of £3.6 million in final settlement of the earlier agreed contract change, which provided for the introduction of the blank application form. The payment covered the additional cost of processing the blank application forms in the period February to September 2003.

  Capita's part in the renegotiation underlined its commitment to this partnership and to this important public service. It also reinforced our belief that it was preferable to continue with the partnership if at all
  WS 32
  possible. The partnership approach, with continued open book accounting and commitment shown during this renegotiation augurs well for the future.

  The CRB is now on a sound footing and through the revised contract will now have far greater flexibility to improve and develop the disclosure service over the coming years.

  Terrorism Act 2000: Report on Part VII
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal
  Lord Carlile of Berriew QC has completed the report on the operation of Part VII of the Act, which will be laid before the House today.

  Planning Appeal Procedures Review
  The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker)
  My right honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  When the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister introduced new procedures in August 2000 to improve the handling of planning appeals we said that their operation would be monitored and reviewed. The outcome of the most recent review has suggested a need for some changes to be made.

  Concern was expressed during the course of the review by a wide range of stakeholders about the perceived inequity for third parties taking part in the appeals process. It was considered anomalous that the rules do not allow third parties to comment on the appeal statements made by the main parties. In order to address this inequity and more fully involve all members of the community in the planning process, we intend to conduct a consultation on proposals to amend the rules for written representations, hearings and inquiries procedures. The proposed amendment would allow third parties that have commented at the six-week stage a further opportunity to comment on main parties' appeal statements at the nine-week stage of an appeal.

  We shall also be amending the rules to take account of drafting amendments suggested by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and to correct minor technical anomalies.

  Gurkha Married Accompanied Service Policy
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach)
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ivor Caplin) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  On 4 June 2003, it was announced that the Ministry of Defence would undertake a review of Gurkha Married Accompanied Service (MAS) policy. The aim of the review was to consider whether the current arrangements were satisfactory and what changes, if any, would be necessary. In examining possible

  WS 33
  changes, the review team are also considering whether any of the special circumstances of Gurkha employment justify MAS restrictions and, if so, to what extent.

  The review team is studying a number of options, the detailed work of which is not yet complete. I had originally hoped to announce the outcome of the review to the House by the end of 2003. I anticipate being in a position to make a full and substantive announcement to the House on the outcome of the review later in the year.

  Armed Forces: Pensions and Compensation
  Lord Bach
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ivor Caplin) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  The House of Commons Defence Committee published its report on Armed Forces Pensions and Compensation on 16 December 2003 (HC 96). The Government's response is published today in a Command Paper (Cm. 6109), ahead of the Second Reading debate on the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill on Tuesday 20 January. Copies are available in the Vote Office from 12 o'clock.

  Normandy Landings Commemoration
  Lord Bach
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ivor Caplin) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
  WS 34
  We are pleased to announce that Her Majesty the Queen and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister have accepted invitations from the President of France to attend commemorations of the 60th anniversary of the Normandy Landings in France in June this year. Further information about the programme, including attendance by other members of the Royal Family and representatives of the Government, will be issued in due course.

  Museums: Private Giving and Government Support
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey)
  The Securing the Best for our Museums: Private Giving and Government Support report has been published today and copies are available in the Libraries of both Houses and in the Printed Paper Office. Copies will also be sent to the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales.

  Sir Nicholas Goodison has been appointed to lead a review of the effectiveness and efficiency of support to regional and national museums and galleries to help them to acquire works of art and culture of distinction that might otherwise be sold abroad, and to make those items accessible to the public. This review was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Budget 2003. The review is now complete and the Securing the Best for Our Museums: Private Giving and Government Support report contains Sir Nicholas Goodison's findings and recommendations.

  The Government will carefully consider the recommendations ahead of Budget 2004 and as part of the 2004 spending review.